I need help for a religious debate

[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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44295

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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?