I need help for a religious debate

[WaterD]

I'm debating with a friend a classic, The bible.
This guy is smart (yes i know it's contradictory) But he is very good at debates and he says the bible is all true, and to be honest i'm not good at this subject.

so i will try to post some questions i have trouble to answer.(my english is bad) For now only this.

1) He says that the egyptian plagues were a success named in the bible and for the date the bible has been written, there is no way the writer could know about the plagues that happen in egypt at that time that were recorded by the egyptians themselves. So the only way they could now is by GOD.
So how can be that the writer knew about the plagues when both civilizations (jews and egyptians) had no connection at all at the times between the plagues and the writing of the bible?

2) and the obvius question, on how would i explain the famous tenth plague...

[Canadian Malcontent]

WaterD, look to Emmanuel Velikovsky "Peoples of the Sea" it has a lot to say regarding egytian timelines.
Besides that you are debating crap. Who cares?
The Bible teaches love , debate that.
yf,
CM

[Beady]

1) He says that the egyptian plagues were a success named in the bible and for the date the bible has been written, there is no way the writer could know about the plagues that happen in egypt at that time that were recorded by the egyptians themselves.


Were the plagues recorded by the Egyptians? Last I heard, there's virtually no evidence outside the Bible that the Israelites were even in Egypt. If they weren't, then why worry about what they supposedly did while in Egypt?

[Beady]

WaterD, look to Emmanuel Velikovsky "Peoples of the Sea" it has a lot to say regarding egytian timelines.

I don't think recommending Velikovsky as a credible source is a good idea.

[andyandy]

1) He says that the egyptian plagues were a success named in the bible and for the date the bible has been written, there is no way the writer could know about the plagues that happen in egypt at that time that were recorded by the egyptians themselves. So the only way they could now is by GOD.
So how can be that the writer knew about the plagues when both civilizations (jews and egyptians) had no connection at all at the times between the plagues and the writing of the bible?



This argument makes no sense....

if the Israelites were really in Egypt, and really witnessed plagues and then really left, then their accounts of that which had happened would be passed on to their descendents and therefore available for the biblical writers to record. God is not necessary for this information transfer.

[PenguinWarrior]

I'm debating with a friend a classic, The bible.
This guy is smart (yes i know it's contradictory) But he is very good at debates and he says the bible is all true, and to be honest i'm not good at this subject.



If he says it's all true, find a few of the contradictions (e.g. the order in which God created the various things that he created.) That pretty much kills that argument. I'm sure googling "Bible contradictions" will turn up this stuff.

[Kopji]

1: Ask him for the evidence of non Biblical sources for Egyptian plagues. I'm pretty sure this is even today a topic of conjecture.

1a: How does he know there was no communication between Egypt and Israel? And not knowing, to wrongly conclude that it must be due to god is just a begging the question fallacy. This does not sound all that smart. Conjecture is not evidence of truth or anything else.

2: Discuss the characteristics of a loving god who would solve a problem with adults by killing their children. (the tenth plague)

[Jekyll]

2: Discuss the characteristics of a loving god who would solve a problem with adults by killing their children. (the tenth plague)

Don't forget that this god hardened the heart of the Pharaoh first to ensure there was a problem.

[Garrette]

1. Velikovsky is definitely not a good source

2. Have him cite the Egyptian records listing the plagues (he won't be able to)

3. andyandy is correct; if the plagues occurred, that fact alone explains how they could have been recorded; no god required.

4. Be very careful about bringing in what you think are untrue or contradictory statements from the bible. Many christian apologists are very adept at addressing those issues; i.e., you won't be the first person who has mentioned it to them. They will have polished responses, so you'd better practice such a tactic with a Devil's Advocate before going live against your debate opponent.

5. Jekyll brings up what I think is one of the strongest points but which gets what I think is the least amount of discussion. God chose the Israelites and overtly hardened the hearts of the Pharoah and the Egyptians. Why then is he mad at the Egyptians for doing what he set them up to do? How could the Egyptians have been expected to behave otherwise? This argument extends to any nation or individual. When someone says "I know god exists because he has spoken to me," I ask why I should believe before the same thing happens to me. It devolves quickly into a "you have to believe first" type of argument, but then you can point out the circularity of it all.

[Ossai]

Canadian Malcontent
The Bible teaches love, debate that.
Exodus 21:20-21
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Matthew 13:41-42
The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Revelation 14:10-11
The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever.

Numbers 16:35
And there came out a fire from the LORD, and consumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.

Numbers 31:15-18
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... 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.

Lest ye not forget the entire book of Job.

Just feel that love oozing out.

WaterD
1) He says that the egyptian plagues were a success named in the bible and for the date the bible has been written, there is no way the writer could know about the plagues that happen in egypt at that time that were recorded by the egyptians themselves. So the only way they could now is by GOD.
So how can be that the writer knew about the plagues when both civilizations (jews and egyptians) had no connection at all at the times between the plagues and the writing of the bible? If that is your friends actual argument, then I wouldn’t exactly call ‘em intelligent. The bible states that the Jews were in Egypt when the plagues happened. Your friend is claiming that they (Jews and Egyptians) had no contact. If the bible is correct then the Jews were present. If your friend is correct then the bible is wrong about the Jews being present.

2) and the obvius question, on how would i explain the famous tenth plague... What’s to explain? There is no evidence for the tenth plague outside the bible, no collaborating evidence.

Ossai

[Tormac]

I'm debating with a friend a classic, The bible.
This guy is smart (yes i know it's contradictory) But he is very good at debates and he says the bible is all true, and to be honest i'm not good at this subject.

so i will try to post some questions i have trouble to answer.(my english is bad) For now only this.

1) He says that the egyptian plagues were a success named in the bible and for the date the bible has been written, there is no way the writer could know about the plagues that happen in egypt at that time that were recorded by the egyptians themselves. So the only way they could now is by GOD.
So how can be that the writer knew about the plagues when both civilizations (jews and egyptians) had no connection at all at the times between the plagues and the writing of the bible?

2) and the obvius question, on how would i explain the famous tenth plague...

I think that the best explanation is that it is a famous story of cultural heroes that is not literally true. Without strong physical evidence, why is the story of Moses any more credible than the tales of Paul Bunyan, Cuchulain, or Merlin?

Even if there was evidence of the Israelites in captivity in the land of Egypt (and every non-religious source that I've read so far on the subject denies that there is), it is a giant leap to assume that the miraculous parts of the story literally happened, and are not just embellishments gradually added on over the years to emphasize the notion that the Isrealites (the side telling the story) is on the side of "righteousness", and the Egyptians are on the side of evil.

[Garrette]

I think that the best explanation is that it is a famous story of cultural heroes that is not literally true. Without strong physical evidence, why is the story of Moses any more credible than the tales of Paul Bunyan, Cuchulain, or Merlin?This approaches the difficulty in debating many christian apologists. One must approach this with caution and know the opponent before the debate.

There are magazines such as "Biblical Archeology Review" (I think that's the name) and others like it, as well as websites and books which claim there is outside evidence for the biblical stories and that more evidence is being uncovered every day.

If your opponent begins down this road, and is well-versed on it at all, refutation becomes much more difficult, particularly in a debate forum. The evidence isn't really there, of course, at least not in valid form, but that doesn't prevent them latching on to it in a way that is believable to the already believing.

[Tormac]

This approaches the difficulty in debating many christian apologists. One must approach this with caution and know the opponent before the debate.

There are magazines such as "Biblical Archeology Review" (I think that's the name) and others like it, as well as websites and books which claim there is outside evidence for the biblical stories and that more evidence is being uncovered every day.

If your opponent begins down this road, and is well-versed on it at all, refutation becomes much more difficult, particularly in a debate forum. The evidence isn't really there, of course, at least not in valid form, but that doesn't prevent them latching on to it in a way that is believable to the already believing.

That is a fair warning Garrette, particularly if you only refer to the likeliness of the physical aspects of the story. I assume though, that part of what is being debated is the likeliness of the literal interpretation of the story, complete with the hand of God, and his minions. The supernatural elements of the story are what I am suggesting WaterD attack.

If WaterD avoids making specific claims about the supernatural (i.e. don't say that God could not have not have done this or the angels could not have done that), but always asks for strong archeological evidence for the supernatural, (i.e. ask for physical evidence that the angel of death once killed all the first born males in Egypt, except for the ones who were in buildings protected by the magic charm of lambs blood). I do not see how even the most bias sources can be produced to back the claim that God turned the waters of the Nile into blood, for example. What kind of physical evidence could there be that would substantiate claims like this?

This is the strength, and weakness of any kind of definitive statement involving the supernatural. While there is no way one can prove that angels did not do something, there is no way anything can be proven about angels period. WaterD just needs to avoid making any kind of statement concerning the supernatural that he has to defend, and instead always question the evidence supporting the particular claim that God hardened the Pharaoh’s heart, or that Moses wielded divine magic and parted the red sea.

I think that it would help to compare the magical elements (I know that WaterD mentioned the tale of the angel of death plague particularly) to stories that others in the class are likely to know, but consider tall tales. Make the comparison. Ask why, if it is not reasonable to assume that a giant blue ox named Babe was the companion of the legendary lumberjack Paul Bunyan, would it be reasonable to assume that Moses had a staff that could become a snake, and eat the snakes that other wizards could produce from their staves.

WaterD should focus on the supernatural elements of the stories, and question why they are reasonable. If his opponent falls back on speculation about how there might have been natural causes that could have explained the miracles, then WaterD should treat that as an admission on his opponent’s part that the miraculous parts are just unbelievable, and chalk it up as a win for him.

[ImaginalDisc]

My favorite is to point out the ridiculous inconsistencies between the four version of the ressurection of that J guy.

[Garrette]

That is a fair warning Garrette, particularly if you only refer to the likeliness of the physical aspects of the story. I assume though, that part of what is being debated is the likeliness of the literal interpretation of the story, complete with the hand of God, and his minions. The supernatural elements of the story are what I am suggesting WaterD attack.

If WaterD avoids making specific claims about the supernatural (i.e. don't say that God could not have not have done this or the angels could not have done that), but always asks for strong archeological evidence for the supernatural, (i.e. ask for physical evidence that the angel of death once killed all the first born males in Egypt, except for the ones who were in buildings protected by the magic charm of lambs blood). I do not see how even the most bias sources can be produced to back the claim that God turned the waters of the Nile into blood, for example. What kind of physical evidence could there be that would substantiate claims like this?

This is the strength, and weakness of any kind of definitive statement involving the supernatural. While there is no way one can prove that angels did not do something, there is no way anything can be proven about angels period. WaterD just needs to avoid making any kind of statement concerning the supernatural that he has to defend, and instead always question the evidence supporting the particular claim that God hardened the Pharaoh’s heart, or that Moses wielded divine magic and parted the red sea.

I think that it would help to compare the magical elements (I know that WaterD mentioned the tale of the angel of death plague particularly) to stories that others in the class are likely to know, but consider tall tales. Make the comparison. Ask why, if it is not reasonable to assume that a giant blue ox named Babe was the companion of the legendary lumberjack Paul Bunyan, would it be reasonable to assume that Moses had a staff that could become a snake, and eat the snakes that other wizards could produce from their staves.

WaterD should focus on the supernatural elements of the stories, and question why they are reasonable. If his opponent falls back on speculation about how there might have been natural causes that could have explained the miracles, then WaterD should treat that as an admission on his opponent’s part that the miraculous parts are just unbelievable, and chalk it up as a win for him.Well, Tormac, I agree, but I'm going to add something that may make it sound as if I do not.

The bit about Babe and Bunyan will not work against even a moderately skilled apologist.

The difference? The difference is that no one has put forth the tales of Paul Bunyan as being true or being about god. The difference is that we don't have two millenia of belief and support for the Paul Bunyan tales while we do for the gospel. The difference is that Paul Bunyan is not mentioned by Josephus and Paul Bunyan doesn't mention historically provable characters like Herod.

Not a substantive refutation by your standards or mine, but in a debate forum, it can be said quite effectively, particularly if the crowd is already on your side.

It applies not only to religious debates, but to any debates against those whose position is based on belief as opposed to reason, particularly if they don't know that. It is a trap to assume that having evidence on our side while knowing the other side has little or none means the debate will be easy. Debates are not scientific publications; they are a public event whose success relies on public reaction. Apologists know this far better than most skeptics, in my experience, and are quite good at debating.

[Tormac]

Well, Tormac, I agree, but I'm going to add something that may make it sound as if I do not.

The bit about Babe and Bunyan will not work against even a moderately skilled apologist.

The difference? The difference is that no one has put forth the tales of Paul Bunyan as being true or being about god. The difference is that we don't have two millenia of belief and support for the Paul Bunyan tales while we do for the gospel. The difference is that Paul Bunyan is not mentioned by Josephus and Paul Bunyan doesn't mention historically provable characters like Herod.

Not a substantive refutation by your standards or mine, but in a debate forum, it can be said quite effectively, particularly if the crowd is already on your side.

It applies not only to religious debates, but to any debates against those whose position is based on belief as opposed to reason, particularly if they don't know that. It is a trap to assume that having evidence on our side while knowing the other side has little or none means the debate will be easy. Debates are not scientific publications; they are a public event whose success relies on public reaction. Apologists know this far better than most skeptics, in my experience, and are quite good at debating.

That is a good point about the "Paul" comparison Garrette, especially as it would take too long to defend against it to be worth the while.

The key to debates like this almost always come down to wording things in a way that allows one to continuously attack, without having to defend any statement (because in reality, the attacker has not made any statement beyond "oh yeah, well prove it"). Comparing the biblical account with local folk-lore may result in making a statement that is defendable (and therefore must be defended, which takes more time than attacking).

That is a good point that WaterD needs to look out for.

[Garrette]

Now we agree in toto.

[alfaniner]

Use at least some of the Top Ten Questions from last week's Commentary. It sure killed all woo discussion on another (unrelated) board.

[WaterD]

Thanks, i think this information will really help me to to continue the debate, i'm actually good at debates but in this case i have two problems, one, i have to do it on english,a lenguage i'm not very good at. second, i did read the bible, but like 8 years ago and i did read it not study it , so i do not remember it very well, is hard to debate about something that you didn't study. (i'm sure someone can argue how i think the bible story is more likely false than true if i didn't study it, i have an argument for that, but won't come in with it if nobody needs it)

Thanks again, again i see that people in this forum is very educated and smart and always help me, i will continue my debate and tell if any updates :)

[pipelineaudio]

this site will never let you down

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

[clarsct]

First, have him prove that there were Jews in Egypt, and that they were kept as slaves.

There is absolutely no evidence of Jewish slaves being kept in numbers, and the Egyptians were notorious for keeping track of such things.

Then we can discuss the Ten Plagues.

[jjramsey]

this site will never let you down

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

Actually, the SAB has already let people down. See here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=44295

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=42448

1) He says that the egyptian plagues were a success named in the bible and for the date the bible has been written, there is no way the writer could know about the plagues that happen in egypt at that time that were recorded by the egyptians themselves.

This is ambiguously phrased. It looks like he thinks that there are ancient records of the Egyptians that we can look at now, but it's hard to tell. See if you can find out what his sources are, if there are any.

[Meadmaker]

Your on an uphill battle on this one, and most of the advice passed on to you so far will fail miserably. All the people who are pointing out the contradictions and suggesting where to find more of them are perfectly correct, but they almost certainly won't be persuasive. Your friend has shown a complete willingness to believe anything that supports his theory, no matter how tenuous the claim. Hence, his assertion that there is independent evidence of the biblical plagues. There isn't, but if he reads that there is such evidence in one of his pamphlets, you won't be able to convince him otherwise.

One thing that skeptics get lost on in arguments is that they assume that people who aren't skeptics must be irrational. A skeptic challenges assertions. If someone says something is true, a skeptic, if he is worthy of the name, will question whether or not it's true.

Most people don't do that. They start from a set of assumptions that they simply will not question. At least, they will steadfastly resist questioning them, and if questioning them at all will do so in a biased manner. Fundamentalists start from the assumption that the Bible is true. Don't bother trying to make him question that assumption, at least not directly. He will resist the temptation to question that assumption, and will grasp at any straw that allows him to hang on to it. Whether its biblical plagues or the contradictions about the death of Jesus, they'll come up with some way of rationalizing them.

Instead, you have to come up with some other of their assumptions, also beyond question, and then show them that the Bible contradicts that assumption. In that way, you open their mind to the possibility that the Bible might be wrong. If you can just get them into a mode where they are questioning their assumption in any way, the whole belief system will tumble like a house of cards.

I speak from experience on this. I wasn't a fundamentalist, but I was a Catholic. I believed the Bible had accurate moral teachings, but wasn't literally true. Then, I had my attention drawn to the book of Ecclesiastes. In that book, it says there is no afterlife. That's a bedrock assumption for a Christian, and right there in the Bible it says it's wrong. Once it got me thinking, it changed me from a believer to an atheist in a matter of weeks. Suddenly, the possibility that the Bible was no more credible than the Vedas seemed worth asking, and before you know it, the idea of a resurrected Jesus just didn't make any sense.

Of course, there are alternative explanations and rationalizations for Ecclesiastes as well. However, when the author of that book wrote that all was vanity, because in the end there is only sleep, that pried my particular door open.

There are some other good candidates for doing that. God is supposed to be a good guy, but Moses was a war criminal. (Numbers 29, if I recall correctly. The slaughter of the Midianite women.) God sending bears to devour children who insulted Elisha. In the old testament, God is not nice, and it's written in the Bible that he is not nice. God being nice is a bedrock assumption. If you can get them to question it, that might open the door.

[Garrette]

I have to echo jjramsey. SkepticsAnnotatedBible is a very good starting point, but do not rely on it for the final word. In my experience, they make frequent large stretches in their attempt to criticize. In their favor, they do note positives in the bible, too.

[Iamme]

This argument makes no sense....

if the Israelites were really in Egypt, and really witnessed plagues and then really left, then their accounts of that which had happened would be passed on to their descendents and therefore available for the biblical writers to record. God is not necessary for this information transfer.

Exactly.

And Moses supposedly was the author of the first 5 books, including Exodus, the 2nd book after Genesis, that would give the account of the Israelites being held captive in Egypt and those plagues.

[Iamme]

I'm debating with a friend a classic, The bible.
This guy is smart (yes i know it's contradictory) But he is very good at debates and he says the bible is all true, and to be honest i'm not good at this subject.

so i will try to post some questions i have trouble to answer.(my english is bad) For now only this.

1) He says that the egyptian plagues were a success named in the bible and for the date the bible has been written, there is no way the writer could know about the plagues that happen in egypt at that time that were recorded by the egyptians themselves. So the only way they could now is by GOD.
So how can be that the writer knew about the plagues when both civilizations (jews and egyptians) had no connection at all at the times between the plagues and the writing of the bible?

2) and the obvius question, on how would i explain the famous tenth plague...

I could perhaps spend all day on such a request as this.

In the beginning the earth was void, and then God said, "Let there be light", and this was the first day, and there was an evening and morning. On the 4th day, God said for there to be the sun and the moon, and the stars. Hmmmm. So. The Earth was here first, before the rest of the universe and even light itself? Hmmmm. And then there was light that would cause a morning and evening, yet it wasn't from the sun? Hmmmm. And THIS is just from the first few lines of the Bible!

Then after a few more lines, on the first same page of Genesis, God makes it out like he thinks it be good for man to have a mate. Really? He thought up a female as an 'afterthought'? Hmmmm.

I could go on and on and on.

Your friend really truly beleives that God confounded language because man was getting too smart for his britches, and was ready to reach up to heaven itself, when the people built the Tower of Babel?

That Neeshack, Meeshack and Abednigo were saved from the fiery furnace by an angel that was visible in the fire with them?...an absolute miracle of all miracles...yet nothing like this ever happens today? (Either the 7th Day Adventists or Jehovah Witnesses devoutely place their faith in God and refuse transfusions, thinking God will save them or their child...yet it never works!! Why not?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And your friend believes Lot's wife really changed into a pillar of salt?

And that God would have really inspired men to take up book space on who begat who, and not concentrate on God really proving to man that God exists?

Or that the reason for pain in childbirth is from man's sin, because they didn't realize at that time that human heads evolved bigger, faster than the vaginal tract?

And that God knew EVERYTHING, and created an angel Lucifer that he knew in advance (and yes God supposedly knows the future, otherwise the prophets would not have been able to fortell events) would become a devil, and that this devil would spoil all of God's plans? Really?

And on and on.

And how does he defend that even though the Bible says that God never changes...that the God of the Old Testament was so VERY different from the passive Jesus of the New Testament? How does he explain Jesus forgiveness, up against God's wrath? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???????

[Dorian Gray]

Your friend really truly beleives that God confounded language because man was getting too smart for his britches, and was ready to reach up to heaven itself, when the people built the Tower of Babel?
God is a divider, not a uniter.

[Bob Klase]

God is a divider, not a uniter.

I thought god was the decider?