azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Luke 4:5"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.". This would only be possible on a flat Earth." You don't seem to grasp the concept of prophetic dreams using symbolism. Read the context it is quoted in, don't just copy a verse out of context without an explanation. "Whatever a "presuppestion" is, we do not accept the Bible because it contains numerous factual errors."I am sorry I mispelled presupposition, and that is a bias toward evidence based on pre-concieved notions. Everyone has a bias this is true. "We have given you the evidence."Who is this we? I think that either you are suffering from a personality disorder, are a maniac, or just very deluded. In your other post you state you are too young to be in the profession of scientist. Maybe once you (how ever many there are of you) step out of your childhood home and establish relationships with others your world view would improve.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

You don't seem to grasp the concept of prophetic dreams using symbolism.Symbolism is not compatible with 100% veracity.I am sorry I mispelled presupposition, and that is a bias toward evidence based on pre-concieved notions.I consider it quite remarkable that you should presume to explain a word to me.Everyone has a bias this is true.I'm unsure as to whether you think this statement helps your cause, but it does in fact work to weaken it.I think that either you are suffering from a personality disorder, are a maniac, or just very deluded.I suspect it may be all three. Most definitely the second, though I prefer the term "lunatic". As for the deluded part, speak for yourself. I am not the one who believes that humans were created some six thousand years ago by a deity.Maybe once you (how ever many there are of you) step out of your childhood home and establish relationships with others your world view would improve.My world view is quite rational actually. If there is no evidence to suggest that something exists, there is no reason to believe that it does.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"Symbolism is not compatible with 100% veracity."Scripture contains a number of different kinds of literature: historical narrative, poetry, parable, epistles (teaching letters), and prophecy. If a passage of Scripture is clearly historical, then we must remember that its purpose is to describe things that actually happened. If a passage is poetic, then we should expect figurative language. Psalm 104, for example, says that God “makes the clouds his chariot” (v. 3), but in light of other Scriptures about God we know that the psalmist here is using a metaphor rather than stating a literal fact. Prophecy is perhaps the most difficult type of passage to interpret. When faced with prophecy in Scripture, it is important to understand the circumstances behind the prophecy and the relevance to the prophet's own day. The most helpful guide for our understanding of Old Testament prophecy is the way it is explained in the New Testament.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

If a passage of Scripture is clearly historical, then we must remember that its purpose is to describe things that actually happened.That is not pertinent. The premise is that the Bible is "100% true". Multiple instances which prove this to be false have been given in this debate, and you now simply attempting to appear intelligent by suggesting that one "looks past the metaphors". The conversion of scripture to metaphor is simply the byproduct of losing territory to rational thinkers, as we have in the past observed with "Genesis". It is merely a smokescreen which attempts to hide the fact that the Christians have misinterpreted their own holy book for centuries.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

You really don't understand the way the Bible is written at all. I just explained to you the styels in which it is written. I am unsure you understand what metaphor is, maybe you should research it. "The conversion of scripture to metaphor is simply the byproduct of losing territory to rational thinkers...."This is not the case at all. You make assumptions about how the book is read. You need to only read a passage of Psalms to see the biblical poetry. Although I have already explained this to you. If this seems to difficult to understand, perhaps you should take a class on poetic literature to comprehend the meaning of a metaphor.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

You really don't understand the way the Bible is written at all.Patently incorrect. I just explained to you the styels in which it is written.I habitually reject the interpretations of persons unable to spell styles.I am unsure you understand what metaphor is, maybe you should research it.I am fully sensible of what a metaphor is. However, Biblical metaphors represent ideas, which cannot be labelled true or false. Thus it is impossible to state that the Bible is "100%" true, which is the salient issue.This is not the case at all. You make assumptions about how the book is read. You need to only read a passage of Psalms to see the biblical poetry.You have not defended yourself, you have simply accused me of ignorance. I shall banish this notion now:SONNET 141 By William Shakespeare"In faith, I do not love thee with mine eyes,For they in thee a thousand errors note; But 'tis my heart that loves what they despise,Who in despite of view is pleased to dote; Nor are mine ears with thy tongue's tune delighted,Nor tender feeling, to base touches prone, Nor taste, nor smell, desire to be invited To any sensual feast with thee alone: But my five wits nor my five senses can Dissuade one foolish heart from serving thee,Who leaves unsway'd the likeness of a man, Thy proud hearts slave and vassal wretch to be: Only my plague thus far I count my gain, That she that makes me sin awards me pain.".We shall observe the first quatrain. The poet claims to note 1000 errors in the appearance of his lover. Are we to take this to be true, or as hyperbole? I should favour the latter. When the poet claims to love with his heart, he is using symbolism; he is not stating a fact. Personification is noted when he claims that his heart "dotes" upon his love.Now, that primitive analysis done, we can see that the first quatrain is not 100% true. It is exaggerated and poetic. The idea behind it may be true, but the claims are not. Thus we can say of the phrase (and I have invented this, but the idea is sound) God commanded humanity to love each other equally. The claim is, in my understanding, incorrect, but the idea behind it is sound. That is the difference between being 100% correct and being poetically correct.If this seems to difficult to understand, perhaps you should take a class on poetic literature to comprehend the meaning of a metaphor.To those others reading this, and those who know me well enough to make such comments, you must look like a total fool by now. Indeed, I think you would suit the role of Polonius very well indeed, given the nature of your insight into the souls of other men. Of course, given your evidently exemplary literary education, I cannot imagine that you shall fail to take my meaning.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"You have not defended yourself, you have simply accused me of ignorance. I shall banish this notion now"And you have confirmed your ignorance by refusing to adhere to the evidence. "I habitually reject the interpretations of persons unable to spell styles."Apparently you have never hesrd of typos, it happens from time to time as people are fallible. Correction: hesrd to heardYou speak of literary expertise, yet you don't graps poetic symbolism written in the Bible. Either that or you blatantly refuse to recognize one of your many mistakes. Except that of course of appearing pompous and "100%" out of your under developed mind.Correction: graps to grasp
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

And you have confirmed your ignorance by refusing to adhere to the evidence.What adherence is possible, when you have provided none? Rather than provide some shred of evidence to substantiate your beliefs, you have proceeded to quibble over poetic interpretation, which I have already explained does not equate to veracity.Apparently you have never hesrd of typos, it happens from time to time as people are fallible.Then I submit that as the Bible was written by people (who, as you say, are fallible), it is impossible for it to be 100% correct. You shall no doubt say that they were inspired by God, or some such thing, but you cannot provide any evidence of that, so I urge you not to make that mistake.You speak of literary expertise, yet you don't graps poetic symbolism written in the Bible.As explained, the interpretation is entirely separate to the Bible's veracity.Either that or you blatantly refuse to recognize one of your many mistakes.I should like to see an example of these so proliferate mistakes.Except that of course of appearing pompous and "100%" out of your under developed mind.Correct on two counts. I am pompous. I am quite mad. What I am not is underdeveloped (there is no hyphen or space). No doubt you shall be unable to substantiate this claim either, but will no doubt proceed to waste my time by arguing the point without evidencing it.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

"What adherence is possible, when you have provided none? Rather than provide some shred of evidence to substantiate your beliefs, you have proceeded to quibble over poetic interpretation, which I have already explained does not equate to veracity." I have provided the evidence to you in my previous posts. Your evidence was that of Shakesphere, which was written thousands of years after the verse you quoted for a flat world. Veracity doesn't apply to the context in which the psalmist has written. We know this by other poems that have been written in the Bible. Jesus himself spoke in parables many times, so not all of what the Bible says is to be literal."What I am not is underdeveloped (there is no hyphen or space)."By your own admission, you are too young to be a professional scientist. And the fact that you are mentally unstable. Therefore I (only one person) submit this evidence to assume you are an underdeveloped (thank you grammar police) person/mind.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

I have provided the evidence to you in my previous posts.I observe that you were unwilling or unable to quote it.Your evidence was that of Shakesphere, which was written thousands of years after the verse you quoted for a flat world.Less than two thousand, so remove that s. That is a silly position to take; poetic techniques are the same regardless of when they were written. By the same logic you displayed here, one could say that Pythagoras' Theorem is incorrect because it was written two millennia ago.Veracity doesn't apply to the context in which the psalmist has written. This is close to my point. This is a debate about veracity; poetic interpretation is moot.By your own admission, you are too young to be a professional scientist.Age is not relevant to whether one is underdeveloped.  And the fact that you are mentally unstable.You believe in magic. In my mind, that makes you mentally unstable.Therefore I (only one person)One of you is enough.submit this evidence to assume you are an underdevelopedAs aforesaid, it is not evidence. The sentence should have read upon which I base the assumption, by the way. I would have thought a person of such obviously superior literary and scientific education as yours would have known that.thank you grammar policeI prefer the term Grammar Nazi. Heil Grammatik!you are an underdeveloped... person/mind.If the only basis you have for gauging my mental development is my age, I suggest you abandon your analysis.Another example of the Bible being factually inaccurate.Matthew 13:31-32God's Perfect World is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.A) The mustard seed is not the smallest seed.B) It grows into a bush, not a tree.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Yes, the Earth is round ... but the Bible never says it's flat.When the Bible talks about the 'four corners' of the Earth, it's talking about the whole earth, or sometimes the four cardinal directions. The ancient Greeks, around the time parts of the Bible were being written, knew the Earth was flat due to different angles of shadows at different places. They even tried to roughly calculate the circumference and diameter of the planet via geometry. Why would a culture who thought the Earth was flat even try?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

The age of the earth does not necessarily prove the bible true, is it not possible that perhaps the principle of uniformitariansim does not extend through all time? Then this would mean that the Earth could be as old as you say or not. The principle of unoformitarinism is an assumption one that cannot necessarily be trusted.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

The age of the earth does not necessarily prove the bible true, is it not possible that perhaps the principle of uniformitariansim does not extend through all time?Whatever you are talking about, it is irrelevant. The Bible puts the creation of the Earth at just a few days before the creation of man. Relative to that starting point, the Bible is wrong, as the Earth existed for billions of years before any life evolved at all.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Thank you so much for pointing this out. But, "If you could reason with religious people, there'd be no religious people.' -Dr. House
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Bats are not rodents.You're right. Thank you for the correction.However, to suggest that an argument, which amounts to little more than "they did it their way, therefore they were correct according to themselves" satisfyingly absolves the Bibble of its error is mindboggling. It doesn't. It only means that they were wrong in their own way. And it's as simple as that.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

This should settle the bat and bird argument. If not then let me know what any of you come up with that is better then the hebrew Lexicon I await your evidence. Moses, who was one of the most-learned in Egypt, has been attacked in several cases to undermine biblical authority. This is another of those attacks to get people to doubt that God was speaking through Moses. Let’s evaluate such a claim in more detail. The passage reads:Leviticus 11:13–19These are the birds [05775 Pwe ‘owph] you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.The Hebrew word for bird is actually owph which means “fowl/winged creature.”1 The word owph simply means “to fly” or “has a wing.” So, the word includes birds, bats, and even flying insects. The alleged problem appears due to translation of owph as bird. Birds are included in the word owph, but owph is not limited to birds. This shows that translators aren't always perfect when handling the inerrant Word of God.F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Brigg Hebrew and English Lexicon, 9th printing (Hendrickson Publishers, September 2005), p. 773
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

if you are referring to"עוף""of"[pronounced 'oaf']it means birdsometimes poultry ; chicken, the flesh of the domestic fowl as foodnot 'winged creature'http://www.doitinhebrew.com/Translate/default.aspx?kb=IL%20Hebrew%20Phonetic&l1=iw&l2;=en&txt=×¢×•7;£&s=1 where did you get your translation, goy?
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

It does mean "winged creature" as well as fowl and winged insects. http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/ hebrew/kjv/owph.html  http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=05775  This also according to "The Brown-Driver-Brigg Hebrew and English Lexicon" which is highest reference of hebrew to english. If you have a more renowned source I would like to see it. Although "do it in hebrew.com" seems much more legitimate. I am beginning to think you have a "severe" learning disability.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

My badAlthough I do not have a learning disability- and the insult is both unnecessary and incorrect-I am speaking modern Hebrew, not archaic HebrewI simply cited a source because I do not like to use my own knowledge from nowhere.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

All you've done is left us at the same, intractable juncture where we began: bats being in the same class as birds. Nothing has been settled. Explaining why the factual incorrectness is there does not make it any less factually incorrect. If the Bible contains things that are factually incorrect, then it is not 100% true. End of discussion.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

What I have shown you is the hebrew language does not discern animals the same way biology does. In the hebrew language it means a "winged-creature" birds and bats have wings even insects do. That is the point here. If this is too complex for you, maybe debatting on such things should be avoided by you in the future. We are debatting the translation from hebrew to english not biology. This should be easy to understand.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

debattingCorrection: Debating.Given the context of the debate (concerning bats), I could not help but notice this rather whimsical misspelling giving rise to an inadvertent pun. How delightful. There is some useful product of your inane ramblings after all.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

In verse 13 Moses tells us about the birds and then he lists them out. In verse 19 we see the bat is included in this list. We know that a bat is not a bird. Does this not mean that the Bible is incorrect?The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Yes, because it is scientifically errant. Even so, many people foolishly take the bible to supersede scientific facts (such as yourself).Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations.Yes, precisely as we would expect from a book that was written by men at such time in history. If it were "divinely inspired" it would not be limited to such fallible perspectives. So for whatever reason you might devise, the bible does contain errors.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

The Bible does not contains errors. Your scientific facts constantly change, whereas the word of God does not. Scripture contains a number of different kinds of literature: historical narrative, poetry, parable, epistles (teaching letters), and prophecy. If a passage of Scripture is clearly historical, then we must remember that its purpose is to describe things that actually happened. If a passage is poetic, then we should expect figurative language. Psalm 104, for example, says that God “makes the clouds his chariot” (v. 3), but in light of other Scriptures about God we know that the psalmist here is using a metaphor rather than stating a literal fact. Prophecy is perhaps the most difficult type of passage to interpret. When faced with prophecy in Scripture, it is important to understand the circumstances behind the prophecy and the relevance to the prophet's own day. The most helpful guide for our understanding of Old Testament prophecy is the way it is explained in the New Testament. One thing you have to understand about english translations is the men would try to relate certain words to the understanding of the reader. This is why you can't judge an english translation to be a bases for error from the original hebrew. In hebrew the word owph means "winged creature" this is not a scientific error. Do birds and bats have wings? (this is where you nod your head) Classifying birds and bats seperately is something we do based on genetic biology. If they used the word "insane" to describe unbelievers we wouldn't be wrong. Just because we classify them by evolutionists, atheists, and immoral doesn't mean these statements aren't true. Just remember owph means "winged creature" or "to fly" in hebrew. If you can do that our discussion should be able to progress.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

The Bible does not contains errors. A statement of faith. Undeterred by reality.The sun is much older than the earth, contrary to what the bible says. This is one of many errors that I could point out.Your scientific facts constantly change, whereas the word of God does not. No one claims science is infallible. But science is the most accurate and reliable method of discovering the truths around us. Science is refined, it becomes more accurate over time. The reliability of science is experienced firsthand every time you turn on your computer, and every time you turn on a light switch. In my years I have discovered that those who claim to have "the truth" are usually the furthest from it, as such overt confidence can never be based rationally but emotionally. They believe in a truth so strongly because they "need" it to be true. Emotion blinds us to truth. This is why truth must be found using reason and evidence.Religion is the bane of true understanding.The bible contains errors because it was written by men, everything that has felt the touch of man's influence contains some degree of fallibility. Even if there is a single perfect truth (I doubt it), it could never be expressed or interpreted by any man without being influenced by man's own bias, prejudices, mis-communications and desires.Religion is a living parody of hyperbolic speech.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Random example:There was no worldwide flood.Therefore the bible is not inerrant.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Could you please provide evidence? Because I can provide evidence that there was a huge flood on earth.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Could you please provide evidence? Because I can provide evidence that there was a huge flood on earth.There isn't enough water on Earth to cover all land. If all land was covered with water at some point, all life on Earth except microbes would perish.There have been many large floods in history, but never a worldwide flood.
Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: yes

Again you have not provided evidence, also, hasn't the world changed over years? So even if there is not enough water now couldn't of there been enough water back then. Another thing, if God was the one to do, wouldn't he be able to make as much water to flood the earth because he is God.Evidence :Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today, nor are they found forming on the bottom of the sea. Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it dies. Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past.As we observe sedimentary strata throughout the world we see almost everywhere flat-lying (or "pancake") layered strata. Many of these layers are so extensive that they cover several states. Evolutionists believe that such layers were deposited slowly over millions and millions of years, or that they are simply "river" deposits or river deltas. Creationists, and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. First because there is virtually no evidence of erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas. That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick, and cover (literally) hundreds and even thousands of square miles, and in many instances are the size of the state of Utah, or even larger.