Debate idea and setup by Aquatus1 and Saucy.

The Bible. The holy book. How credible is it really? Are the events within it's pages Fact, or simply fictional bedtime reading?
This is the question our debaters will be determining in this debate.
Saucy will be debating that the bible is a credible, factual source while aquatus1 will be debating that the bible is fictional.

This will be a formal, 1v1 debate in which each debater will post an introduction to their side, followed by FOUR body posts and a conclusion. They will be marked by our debate judges on their style, relivance to the topic, countering the opponents arguments and persuasiveness of their own, for a mark on each out of 10 and a total mark out of 40.

Since this is a 1v1 debate i would please ask no one besides Saucy or aquatus to post in this debate.
Please no flaming, and remember to state your sources.

Any questions, PM me. Good luck to our debaters!

This is my introduction:

For thousands of years, many millions of people have looked towards their Holy Bible for inspiration, care, love and even for a meaning to life. The whole idea of the bible is that it has been written by God through many numerous authors for us to read and to learn. But also, where there has been a bible, there have been people trying to rid of world of it's pages and no other time in history has the bible been more under attack than now. In this debate, I'm going to show the many wonderful and amazing attributes about the bible that perhaps a lot of people don't know about that shows how much of a credible book it is. This debate, though, is not about proving whether or not God is real and God is not real to anyone unless they have faith in His existance, so the burden of proof is on me. Not only do I have to prove that the bible is credible, but that it's meanings are deeper and have a supernatural attribute about it. I wish good-luck to Aquatus.

Debate Posponed until Febuary 1st.

Credibility. In science, it is everything. There is no faith. There are no authority based decisions. Credibility is the lifeblood of a scientist; very difficult to gather, very easy to lose.

Credibility is the quality that something has for inspiring belief. Notice that this doesn't necessarily mean that the idea being espoused is correct or incorrect. Credibility is not about what is real, or even what is factual, but rather, what can be trusted. Is it worthy of belief? Of faith?

In this debate, I intend to point out how the Bible, as a credible source, is lacking. How there are inconsistencies with its claims, how there are contradictions with its rules. I will point out the logical fallacies, and the basic errors made by a people who simply didn't understand the natural world to the extent that we do. Ultimately, I will show how the bible, as a credible source, is nothing more than a book of fiction, and how the information found within its pages, can be found in any given book in that section of the bookstore.

I wish good luck to my opponent; I have looked forward to debating him again, as I feel he has grown tremendously over the last year, and may the best man win.

The bible is more than a book of fiction as my opponent puts it. There are things in the bible that point to being more than just a book of fiction. Here is part one of my debate: The Bible and Science. I'm going to show that there is much scientific data in the bible that scientists aren't really realizing until recently.

1994 discovery-sequence of D.N.A. in part of a human cell known as mitochondria. This D.N.A. is inherited only through the mother's line. Science now admits that every person on earth is descended from a single human female. Genesis 3:20 "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all the living."

It wasn't too long again that doctors thought a humans' blood was actually poisonous and attempted to drain people's bodies of blood when they were ill. George Washington died on December 14th, 1799. His doctor killed him. On 3 occasions, his doctor opened his veins and bled him to death. If the doctor knew the scriptures, perhaps Washington would've lived longer. Lev. 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." Lev. 17:14 "For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof..."

God commanded that "every man child among you shall be circumcised" (Gen 17:10) When should that happen? Genesis 17:12 says, "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised..." Why eight days old? A newborn infant has peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life. Hemorrhages at this time, may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination. The important blood clotting element, vitamin K, is not formed in the normal amount until the 5th to 7th say of life. On the 3rd day of a baby's life, the available prothrombin is only 30%. Even more amazing is that the prothrombin skyrockets on the 8th day to a level even better than normal-110%. It then levels off to 100%. It appears that the 8-day old baby has more available prothrombin than any other day in its entire life.

Sir Isaac Newton "discovered" that it was the moon that helps cause the high and low tide, but the bible said it first. Jeremiah 31:35, "Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; the Lord of hosts is his name..."

Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. His book is still a basic textbook on the subject and is still being used in universities today. It begins with Maury reading the bible. Ps. 8:8, "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas," Matthew Maury said, "If God said there are paths in teh sea, I am going to find them."

Other global evidence science didn't know about until the last century: evaporation: Eccl. 1:7 "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again." This clearly talks about evaporation. Psalms 135:7 says, "He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries."

The expanding universe: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth." Is it expanding? Genesis 1:15, "And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so." Firmament means "expanse" which comes from expansion. It wasn't until 1924 that it was discovered that the universe is expanding at a rapid rate of speed. This blew the "steady state" theory out of the water. If the universe is expanding it must have had a beginning. Albert Einsteing said, "If it had a beginning, it must have had a beginner." The Detroit Free Press (1/3/95) "The universe was conceived in a violent explosion, known as the big bang and has been changed radically since then. Such an evolving universe is contrary to the steady theory held by scientists who contend that the universe is boundless, unchanging, and with no beginning and no end." Isaiah 40:22 "Who stretcheth out the heavens like a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent." Isaiah 42:5 "He who created the heavens, and stretched them out..." Isaiah 44:24 "...I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone." Job 9:8 "Which alone spreadeth out the heavens." God said it first (by 2,600 years). God said it more scientifically. Space is a vacuum and is silent, so there was no "bang", big or small.

More on stars...How many are there? In 125 AD-Hipparchus said 1022. In 200 AD, Ptolemy said 1026 stars. In the 1600's- Galileo said, "too many to number" after inventing the telescope. He was right, but God said it first. Jeremiah 33:22, "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured."

Detroit Free Press (4/3/85) "Scientists in California on Tuesday reported a major discovery that supports the emerging theory that life on earth began in clay rather than the sea." Job 33:6, "Behold, I am according to thy wish in God's stead: I also am formed out of the clay.

Mohorovocic Discontinuity. Science discovered in 1909 why the land masses do not sink back into the sea. It is called Mohorovocic Discontinuity, an 1800 mile thick mantle of rock that exists world-wide between the molten core of the planet and 20/25 mile thick crust on which we live. This was discovered in 1909, but found in scripture. Jeremiah 31:37 "If the heaven above can be measured, and the foundation of the earth searched out beneath..." Job 38:4, "Where was thou when I laid the foundation of the earth?"

Ancient views of the earth: Ancient Egypt: 1400 BC "A square flat earth supported of five pillars. Ancient Greece: 400 BC "Earth carried on the shoulders of Atlas." Job 26:7, "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

A 1502 letter Columbus wrote to the king, "In carrying out his enterprise to the Indies, neither reason nor mathematics nor maps were of any use to me: Fully accomplished were the words of Isaiah." Isaiah 40:22-"Is is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." This is the verse that prompted Columbus' voyage across the ocean and no maps, reason or mathematics was of any use. He went out on faith.

There's a lot more in the bible that would just use up too much space and nobody wants to read too much information. Everything involves faith. Everything. There's a saying that goes "The only two things you can count on is death and taxes." When you fly a plane, you have faith that it will get you to where you're going...that it was built right. Science, most of it anyways, is a bunch of theories backed by more theories. You actually need to have faith that what someone else says is right, but as most opponents to the bible say, men are wrong and men lie and men make mistakes. That's what science is. It's an organization based upon infallable theories. The only part of the bible that's being disputed is creation. Other than the creation story, there's nobody on the face of the planet who can disprove the bible. Nobody.

The Bible and Science

When we are talking about the credibility of something, we generally refer to its relevance and its factuality concerning a specific subject. In this particular case, Saucy is attempting to show how the Bible can be used as a credible source of scientific data.

Now, for obvious reasons, we do not expect to see modern-day terminology, nor even a certain level of accuracy, but we should, at a minimum, be able to discern wether or not the authors were actually refereing to the topics we believe them to be referring to. After all, the Bible is not a scientific textbook; we should not expect it to teach theory. But if we are to assume the information was divinely inspired scientific knowledge, and not commonly observed phenomena, we should see an understanding of the basics behind the theory.



At first glance, this is a compelling argument. After all, if the Bible says that there was only one woman from whom we all came, and the science says that all mitochondrial DNA came from one woman, then the two seem to go perfectly hand in hand. However, the problem here is conceptual. Science does not, in fact, "admit that every person on earth is descended from a single human female". This is a simple, but incorrect, error in understanding the information. This error comes about from the idea that genetic lines represent individual humans. In fact, genetic lines represent only the genetic information they pertain to. In other words, there was a single woman, over 150,000 years ago, who is the source of the mitochondrial DNA everyone seems to carry, however, she did not carry any of the other 30,000 functioning genes currently in our systems. Each one of them has a different "Eve", so to speak (not all genetic lines are derived from the mother's side; that mitochondrial DNA is is what made it so easy, relatively speaking, to track to its source). Mitochondrial Eve was not, according to science, the mother of us all, but merely the mother of our mitochondrial DNA.

Final Analysis: The Bible is claiming that there was one woman from whom all our genetic material is derived from. Science does not support that. Science does support separate origins for our various genetic lines. In respect to a single mother, the Bible was incorrect.



Hopefully, Saucy isn't claiming that Leviticus is the first indication people had that losing blood was a bad thing. I can personally not think of a more easily understood causal connection than the one between loss of blood and death; even the cavemen must have been acutely aware of this.

Regardless, as it turns out, Leviticus isn't talking about blood's medical properties. Leviticus is God's instructions on how to make a proper sacrifice. He clearly states that the blood (of animals, specifically of the ox and the goat), being the life of the body, which was hardly divinely inspired knowledge, was meant exclusively for His altar. Lev. 17:11 is a bit more detailed than what Saucy posted: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.". I have no doubt whatsoever that Washington's doctors were fully aware of the scriptures, however, since they were not in the process of offering a sacrifice to God, it probably didn't occur to them.

Final Analysis: The idea represented in Leviticus concerning the life within the blood of an animal is used only to emphasize its sacred nature and why it can only, on the pain of banishment, be used as an offering for God. It does not make any references to its biological properties of sustaining body function, most likely because, while not completely understood by the ancient people, it was obvious enough what the consequences of draining the blood of an animal were to that animal's life. In short, the relevance of Leviticus to the biological properties of blood is non-existent.



The first thing to notice is that the ritual of circumcision in Genesis has nothing to do with survival, but rather as a brand, indicating the covenant between God and Abraham's people. Yes, the newborns needed to get circumcised on the eight day, but then, absolutely everyone, regardless of age, needed to be circumcised as well, including 99 year old Abraham. It is fairly evident that the author did not understand any sort of medical benefit of an eight day circumcision.

So, why eight days old? Let's go to the experts:

Brit Milah, incidentally, is the "Covenant of Circumcision" which is spoken about in Genesis.

What is circumcision?

Final Analysis: The eight is not refereing to any sort of medical knowledge, but to a spiritual belief. That on the eight day the newborn is more capable of stopping the bleeding by themselves could be either a coincidence, or more likely, the simple result of observation.



Isaac Newton didn't discover it, he proved it using his theory of Gravity. Most ancient culture, particularly sea-faring cultures, were quite aware of the connection between the moons and the tide.

Regardless, if you will read the quotation Saucy has provided, you can see that it is not the moon that is being credited with causing the tides, but rather God himself. This is his introduction and title. To paraphrase: "This is what I am telling you! They guy who makes the sun shine? The guy who makes the moon and stars glow? The guy who makes the sea storm up and roar? That is the lord Almighty! You better pay attention, cause this is coming from Him."

Final Analysis: According to this, the moon isn't causing the tides, God is.



Final Analysis: As you can see, the bible does not contain the knowledge. Matthew Maury had to go out and find it himself.



This is getting a little silly. The ancient people were not idiots. The knew full well that water evaporated, and it wasn't too difficult to figure out that if water turned into air, and rain fell from the clouds in the air, then chances were good that the water in the air that was falling back to the ground was the same stuff that disappeared if you left it outside. Again, Saucy is mixing up commonly observed phenomena with divinely inspired and otherwise unobtainable knowledge.

I could go on, but frankly, I've spent an hour on this alone and it gets too silly. The essential problem with all these examples is that none of them are showing any sort of knowledge that is based on science, but rather on observation. Heck, some of Saucy's examples are nothing more than quoting one observation from the bible and another from a scientist . Where is the science? Where is the indication that these ancients somehow knew something they could not possibly have known without a God telling them?

The examples presented are either pointless comparisons, like Galileo's countless stars; out of context, like Leviticus' blood; lack of knowledge, like the significance of the eight day circumcision; or lack of understanding, like the moon causing tides. Some, like the Eve example, are simply wrong.

For every extremely stretched out example of "science", one can find very specific scientific errors, ones without any gray area or interpretation need. For instance, the Bible says in Lev 11:5-6 that hares and coneys are unclean because they "chew the cud" but do not part the hoof. But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not "chew the cud". In 11:22, he says that you can eat grasshoppers and locusts, but not any other four-legged "flying creeping thing". Since when do these insect (heck, any insect) have four feet? For the sake of completeness, why don't we offer up some medical advice? For those of you suffering from leprosy:

According to Saucy, there is "much scientific data in the bible that scientists aren't really realizing until recently.". This is wrong. The bible doesn't contain any more scientific data than any other mythology of the time, and less than some. At best, it contains are some observations of the natural world and some supernatural explanations for them. At worse, it has outright factual errors, like the ones I pointed out above. We cannot consider the Bible to be a credible source for scientific data because it is impossible to figure out what can be considered scientific until after the fact. In other words, the only thing we can do with the bible is see if anything we have matches up. We cannot take a given 'fact' from the bible, and base our research off of it; it is simply to vague.

Ultimately, what Saucy is attempting to do here support the credibility of the bible by showing how it might contain scientific data. Unfortunately, being as there is no way to decide what part of the bible is scientifically accurate and what part isn't, there is no way to support the credibility of the bible in this regard.

Next up, Logical Errors in the Bible!

My opponent is now contradicting himself. First he says that the people of early times didn't know how to explain aspects of their environment and that's why they created a God or gods, then he says that they did understand their environment? That doesn't make sense. If they understood that water from the oceans is evaporated into the atmosphere where it is condensed and later falls as rain and the whole cycle continues, then they would have no need for rain gods and wouldn't do rain dances, etc... They obviously didn't understand that blood was important for life or else Washingon's doctor wouldn't have bled him to death. What, they circumcised a child in the first day, it died. So they tried another child on the second day. It died so they tried again and again until finally the eighth child didn't die then they said, "OKay, eight days it is?" That's crazy. It was commanded of the Jews that they circumcise on the 8th day of life for a new child before anyone was ever circumcised. Yes, men older than 8 days old were also cut, because it was okay by then, but the verse says that no one younger than 8. What man in their right man would think of cutting their penis skin in the first place?

Moving on to part two of my debate: Biblical prophecy.

There is no religious book in the history of the world that can claim divine inspiration and back it up with prophecy. Other religious books have prophecy, but none that actually happen. People say that religious prophecy is just too vague, but that is not true. As you will see, the bible has made many bold predictions, even naming people by name hundreds of years before they were born.

First, let's look at 1st Kings chapter 13 verses 2-3, "And he cried against the altar in the word of the Lord, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the Lord; Behold a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burned upon thee. And he gave a sign the same day, saying, This is the sign which the Lord hath spoken; Behold, the altar shall be rent, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out."

The name of the king, Josiah, was mentioned by name. The verse actually says, "Behold a child SHALL be born...name Josiah" Josiah, a king, would not appear onto the scene for 290 years, who reigned from 640 to 609 B.C.

The fulfillment: 2nd Kings chapter 23 verses 15 and 16, "Moreover the altar that was at Beth-el, and the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin, had made, both that altar and the high place he brake down, and burned the high place, and stamped it small to powder, and burned the grove. And as Josiah turned himself, he spied the sepulchres that were there in the mount, and sent, and took the bones out of the sepulchres and burned them upon the altar, and polluted it, according to the word of the Lord which the man of God proclaimed, who proclaimed these words." Mentioned by NAME and even fulfilled exactly what the verse from 1st Kings said he would do.

There was another king mentioned by name and his actions he both fulfilled. Isaiah wrote this prophecy in 712 B.C., Isa 44:28, "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built: and to the temple. Thy foundation shall be laid." What was going on even before Isaiah's time, Jerusalem was to be destoryed by the Babylonians and Solomon's temple destroyed. Isaiah said that a man named Cyrus would come in and get back Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Jerusalem wasn't even attack by the Babylonians until after Isaiah had died and indeed a man named Cyrus came and the prophecy fulfilled is written in Ezra chapter 1 verses 1 and 2, "Now in the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus King of Persia. The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth: and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah." Called by name 176 years before he was born.

Here's an amazing prophecy: the East Gate.
Ezk. 44:1-3, "Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. Then said the Lord unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore, it shall be shut. It is for the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the Lord: he shall enter by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the way of the same."

In order to:
1) Disprove the bible
2) Disprove the second coming of Jesus
3) Prove Christianity wrong
4) Prove Jesus is not the Messiah
5) Turn the faith of millions into ashes....all you have to do is open up the East Gate!!!! This gate has been closed for over 500 years and will not be opened until the coming of Christ. The bible said it would be shut and won't be opened again. It happened and remains that way.

What about the series of Judgments upon Egypt?
1) Judgment upon the capital city of No (Thebes)
2) Judgment upon the key city of Noph (Memphis)
3) Judgment upon the entire nation of Egypt.

1) Judgment of No (Thebes)

Ezk. 30:15, " And I will pour my fury upon sin, the strength of Egypt: and I will cut off the multitude of No. And I will set fire in Egypt: Sin shall have great pain, and No shall be rent asunder, and Noph shall have distresses daily."

The verse says "Cut off the multitude", it was the capital city, and it will be rent asunder or divided up. The fulfillment: Thebes fell in 89 B.C. never to be rebuilt as a city. The population was driven off. What had been the capital was rebuilt as nine hamlets. It really was "rent asunder" or divided up.

2) Judgment upon Memphis (Noph)

Ezk. 30:13, "Thus saith, the Lord God, I will also destory the idols, and I will cause their images to cease out of Noph: and there will be no more a prince of the land of Egypt: and I will put fear in the land of Egypt." The verse says the idols will be destroyed and the images will cease. Fulfillment: Memphis fell in 525 B.C. The invader collected cats and dogs and released them in front of their troops. Cats and dogs were sacred to Egypt, so the army wouldn't defend themselves. All their idols were broken down and burned. (Note: In Thebes, the idols still stand, but the city is rent assunder, in Memphis, the city remains, but the idols are gone.)

3) Judgment upon Egypt itself.
A) Egypt to become a base nation: Ezk. 29 verses 14 and 15, "And I will bring again the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their habitation: and they shall be there a base kingdom. It shall be the basest of the kingdoms: neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations." Egypt is to continue to exist, but in a diminished form. It is never to rule over other kingdoms again.
Also, no more prince: Ezk. 30:13, "Thus saith the Lord God, I will also destory the idols and I will cause their images to cease out of Noph: and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt..."
The rivers are to dry up: Ezk. 30:12, "And I will make the rivers dry, and sell the land into the hand of the wicked: and I will make the land waste, and all that is therein, by the hand of strangers: I the Lord have spoken it."
The land is to become waste: Ezk. 29:9, "And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste: and they shall know that I am the Lord: because he hath said. The river is mine, and I have made it. (Note: Now, 99% of the people live on 4% if the land)
The papyrus (main industry at the time) is to die out. Isa 19:5-7, "And the waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up. And they shall turn the rivers far away: and the brooks of defence shall be emptied and dried up: the reeds and flags shall wither. The paper reeds by the brooks, by the mouth of the brooks, and every thing sown by the brooks, shall wither, be driven away, and be no more."

Contrast those verse with the way Egypt is today. Funk and Wagnell Encyclopedia about Egypt says, "Less than 14,000 square miles of the land area of Egypt is settle or under cultivation. This territory consists of the valley and delta of the Nile River. The remaining 98% of the country consists of the Libyan Desert, which borders the Red Sea and the Gulf of Suez. The people then inhabiting the Nile delta and valley were descendants of the Hamitic branch of hte Caucasian raceAided by the resultant turmoil, and disunity, foreign invaders easily conquered the country in the 18th century B.C.. Almost 99 % of the population lives within the Nile Valley, which compromises only 4% of the total area." End quote. I just wanted to mention from the verse saying that (In Ezk. 30:12 where is was said that He will make the rivers dry and sell the land into the hand of the wicked) was done by the Turks in the 16th century. Continuing on with the encyclopedia: "Government: Egypt is governed by a provisional constitution promulgated on March 25, 1964. The constitution provides for an Arab socialist state with Islam as the official religion....Early in the morning of July 23 a group of middle-ranking army officers, organized by Lieutenant Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser, ousted the existing government, installed former premier Aly Maher Pasha (1883-1960) as "emergency premier" and proclaimed the Palestine war hero Major General Mohammed Naquib as commander in chief. King Faruk was forced to abdicate on July 26th. With the enthusiastic support of large sections of the people, the revolutionary regime abolished all noble titles, impounded the royal properties, raised army pay, increased income taxes....etc. Thebes was destoryed and rebuilt as nine hamlets, all of which remain today....Plants and animals-The vegetation of Egypt is confined largely to the Nile Delta, the valley and the oases. Papyrus once prevalent along the Nile, is now limited to the extreme south of the country."

There are hundreds of prophecies concerning Israel, Jesus and much, much more. I could go on about bible prophecy which have happened. People such as Alexander the Great and other regimes have come, but were foretold by the bible first and can be proven by history.

Well, if it didn’t make sense to my opponent, then perhaps it didn’t make sense to others, so I shall elaborate. The key here is in understanding the difference between “explaining” and “understanding”. It is similar to the mistake my opponent made with Newton and the moon. Now, by “explanation”, we are referring to scientific explanations, of course, as was the context when I used the word, so by not being able to explain aspects of their environment, what I was saying is that the ancients did not understand the principles of physics and chemistry underlying the phenomena. Similarly, I understand that, in the environment of my car, when I press the gas peddle, the car moves faster. I could not explain how that occurs to you, and if pressured, I would make up something about wires and levers and pumps. My explanation would be unscientific, and not credible, despite the terminology, because it is derived from my beliefs, not from objective or logical evidence. So, while an ancient Hebrew would not have been able to explain the thermodynamic process that goes into the energy transfer that is evaporation, he would have certainly been able to understand that a pot of water left in the sun disappeared into the air, and water feel from clouds in the air, ergo chances are good that the water from his pot and the water from the clouds was one and the same. Whether he understood that the water had an entire cycle to go around the planet is unlikely, however.



Wait, are you including Washington’s doctors with the ancient Hebrews? Goodness, you cover quite a time span! Regardless, yes, the doctors were quite aware of how vital the blood was to the body, unfortunately, they were under the impression that the other three humors (Phlegm, Yellow Bile, Black Bile), would keep the patient alive, if unbalanced. For the sake of completeness, I will include that Washington ordered his intern to bleed him prior to the doctors arriving, then the doctors bled him again, and another doctor bled him a third time the next day. Altogether, that is close to 80 ounces of blood (about 35% of what is in your body). Frankly, this is more lack of communication, much like doctors writing too many prescriptions for the same patient. It isn’t that the medicine is bad, it’s just that there is too much of it.



I was hoping to clarify this a bit more, as I didn’t explain it very well the first time. As I said before, if we are to accept that the Bible is offering this as medical advice, then we should have an indication that the people who are doing it have an understanding of why it is happening. In other words, if we are to assume that the eight day limit was placed there for a scientific reason, we should be able to see a source concerning survivability at some point. The source of the eight days, however, is not survivability. It is magic. I quote from my previous link:



Incidentally, this also answers my opponent’s question concerning why any sane person would take a knife to his putz . See, religion has an answer to everything!

Now, my opponent has made the claim that no other holy book has made prophecies that have come too pass. So the argument here is that, if the Judeo-Christian holy book has prophecies that have come true, and no other religion has prophecies that have come true, then...what? We can assume the bible is a credible source of prophecy? By prophecy, of course, we are limiting ourselves to predictions of divine origins (since my opponent specified holy books). So, what if other religions have prophecies that have come true, and are also derived from divine origins? Then we can assume that those religions are also credible sources for prophecy as well, correct? Perhaps my opponent meant that by containing credible prophecies, it would prove that the Bible was sourced from God, but then, the existence of God isn’t what this debate is about, is it? After all, if that was the case, then showing examples of prophecy from other religions would validate their gods as well, and make them equally credible, at which point the Bible would no longer be credible because it specifically states that no other god is to be put before the Judeo-Christian god, much less described as His peers.

In all cases, one can find many examples, and I won’t bore you with many, of prophecies that have both a divine origin and are accepted as having come true. For instance, Cassandra, having been given prophetic powers by Apollo, predicted that Paris, her brother, would be the destruction of Troy, long before the over-sexed youngster absconded with Helen; heck, before he was even born. Not much gray area there. And my opponent mentioned how Alexander the Great was predicted first by the bible, yet from ancient Egyptian records, we have Nectanebo, the last king of Egypt, and a god, by definition, who was consulted by King Phillip while Olympia was pregnant. Nectanebo constructed a natal horoscope for the most auspicious moment of birth, and insisted to Olympia that she must not allow the child to be born until the moment he specified. At that time the earth quaked, the sky tore with lightning, and thunder sounded like cosmic drum rolls saluting the event. As the infant gave his first cry, Nectanebo announced: "O Queen, now thou hast given birth to a governor of the world." (2) Years later, Alexander the Great would be the subject of worship, awe, obedience and a passable, though lacking movie (although that came by much later).
Ultimately, prophecy is difficult to base bible credibility on. Much as was the case with bible science, it is impossible to know which prophecy will come true and which will not until such time as it has actually happened. For instance, one would imagine that a prophecy made by Jesus Christ, arguably one of the most likely people to know how the future would turn out, would be correct, and yet, in Mark13: 23-31 Jesus himself says:

23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time. 24 "But in those days, following that distress, " 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' 26 "At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens. 28 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Jesus, rather explicitly, says that the end of the world will come prior to that generation dying off. It, however, did not. If the prophecy of Jesus Christ himself isn’t credible, how can we assume any one of the prophecies in the Bible is credible until it has happened? If one cannot tell which prophecy is going to come true or not, then how credible a source of prophecies can the bible be?

I apologize to my opponent, who no doubt expected me to debate the accuracy of the prophecies , as opposed to their relevance, or more specifically, irrelevance.

It is with deep regret that I am going to stop this post here (Hey! I heard those sighs of relief! Don’t think I don’t know who you are!) Unfortunately, I wanted to point out the logical inconsistencies of the bible that would render it less credible as well, but I will be leaving tomorrow and not return till Friday (hopefully) and I didn’t want this debate to come to a standstill. My next post will likely be a long one, because I shall have to counter the points my opponent makes (unless I can simply copy them from our former debate) as well as make a few points of my own; after all, it is almost unfair that my opponent provide all my evidence for me.

This will be a quick post because my opponant didn't give me much to work with here. To start off, the words of Jesus about "this generation" not passing away doesn't mean the current generation in which Jesus was living in or any of the disciples. He was referring to the generation that was currently around when all those things were happening. He was saying that this would happen and that would happen and this generation (the generation which happened to be around at the time) shall not die. Jesus left it open because no man is to know when Jesus will return. It is an open-ended prophecy; it will happen at any time. Even the disciples believed it will happen during their lifetime, but of course they didn't know. It was a way of keeping men on their feet. A lot of critics will look at that phrase and immediately assume it's a contradiction and are quick to embrace the idea that the bible is wrong about something without giving it another look. When it comes to other bible prophecy, no other book has the same track record. Nothing was even written about Alexander the Great until some 500 years after his death. Alexander considered himself a living God and probably forced someone to record the idea that his birth was prophecied. When it comes to the bible, everything was recorded first hand by men who saw what actually happened and had no influence because it was actually dangerous at any time in history to write biblical truths. Even the disciples of Jesus were threatened with their lives and many died to keep the truth alive. Only bible prophecy actually mentions the name of a king or in detail about what was to happen. That's where we get into the third and final part of my debate. It's historical accuracy. The bible is 100% accurate. Every city, every town, every battle, every person has been accounted for in history and archeology. Wait, only two places can't be found. Sodom and Gommorah and experts proudly shout, "Hey, we can't find those cities! They must not exist!" But the bible says they were completely destroyed leaving nothing behind so the fact that they cannot be found is another victory for the bible. Other than those two cities, everything else has been accounted for. Another biblical truth is how the bible changes lives. There is so much wisdom in the bible that's wholesome and true. Man himself could not and would not write such things in the bible. Man would not say wait until marriage before sex. Man would not say get circumcised. Man wouldn't say any of the commands God says. You can't find a single statement in the bible or piece of advice that is wrong. There are also stories in the bible that reflect a bad image on the person who's writing the story. A disciple of Jesus would never say that he hid and was afraid after Jesus death. What kind of image would that portray? A man during that time would not admit that women found the tomb. We would be able to tell if the bible is of man or of God's truth. You cannot deny it's accuracy and prophecy and its ability to change lives.

We are still waiting for aquatus1's reply.

He hasn't been online in quite some time, so if anyone knows whether he'll be coming back or not, please let me know.

Looks as though this debate is finished, so I'll hand it over to our debate judges to obtain their scores.

There will be a 5 point deduction for aquatus1 since he failed to finish the debate.

Thanks.

Debator 1: Saucy
Relevancy:10
Countering:9
Style:9
Persuasiveness:8
Total:36

Debator 2: Aquatus
Relevancy:10
Countering:8
Style:9
Persuasiveness:8
Total:35 (- 5)= 30

It was a close run thing, it's a pity Aquatus could not finish.

Debator 1: Saucy
Relevancy:10
Countering:9
Style:8
Persuasiveness:8
Total:35

Debator 2: Aquatus
Relevancy:9
Countering:8
Style:8
Persuasiveness:7
Total:32 (- 5)= 27

Debator 1: Saucy
Relevancy:10
Countering:8
Style:8
Persuasiveness:7
Total:33

Debator 2: Aquatus1
Relevancy:8
Countering:8
Style:8
Persuasiveness:7
Total:31 (- 5)= 26

Results are in:

saucy finished with a score of 34.6, making him the winner;
aquatus1 finished with a score of 27.6 (including the -5 for not finishing).

This was an excellent debate, and a shame that aquatus couldn't finish.