The Instigator
ShadowKingStudios
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
dannyc
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Biblical Contradictions, Part I

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 694 times Debate No: 58452
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

ShadowKingStudios

Con

Premise:
Which Opponent Can Best Prove or Debunk Alleged Biblical Contradictions.
Definition:
Contradiction: "the statement of a position opposite to one already made"
Scholar: "a learned person" (either renowned w/o official academic training or an academic degree-holder
Sources:
1. Holy Bible(s) of the Christianity religion
2. Religious Texts (Denominational Dictionaries/Glossaries)
3. Scholarly Texts (Lexicons, Concordances, Dissertations, Treatises)
4. Direct Quotes from Respectable Scholars
Proposition:
(R1) Pro may, if desired, define "contradiction" but ONLY based on a Dictionary definition. This round is acceptance for both opponents.
(R2) Pro will present contradictions & argue why they are such.
(R2) Con will rebut Pro's contradictions & argue why they are not.
(R3) Pro will rebut Con's rebuttals of why they are not contradictions with Pro's Secondary Evidence.
(R3) Con will refute Pro's Secondary Evidence with Con's Secondary Evidence.
(R4) Pro will present a Closing Argument of why these are Contradictions (up to maximum 6,000 character limit).
(R4) Con will present Closing Statements of why they are not Contradictions (limit of 1 Opening Sentence; 3 Five Sentence Paragraphs; 1 Closing Sentence).

Rules for (Opponents):
1. Follow all the guidelines above.
2. Sources are permitted each round & are not prohibited by Con's R4 Closing.
3. Intelligent Debating Only
4. NO DIRECT INQUIRIES between Opponents (Indirect Questions to the world at large are permitted. Ex. "Is this type of logic really suppose to be true?"
5. Present ALL arguments as concisely as possible (we should not bore the readers with heavy technical-laden language, drawn out explanations and examples, etc.)
6. Be mindful of textual formatting.
7. In the Voting Period, opponents should refrain from commenting on the Judges' rulings, unless a Judge specifically ask a question to a particular opponent.

Suggested Rules for (Judges):
1. NO TIES unless you absolutely cannot distinguish a victor for a specific category.
2. Award points on S&G but NOT against obvious foreign language words
3. Who did you agree with before the debate? This is a bias question PLEASE answer it.
4. Who did you agree with after the debate? Choose the opponent you awarded points for Most Convincing Argument. Clicking the later obviously means you agreed with that opponent (to a degree).
5. Understand reliable isn't equivalent to credible--not in certain contexts. (SEE: http://www.debate.org...). Choose an opponent.
dannyc

Pro

I accept.

I define contradiction as is said in , "to suppose that the same thing is and is not, Metaphysics (IV,1005b)

That is one cannot be and not be, on basic Aristotilian logic.
Debate Round No. 1
ShadowKingStudios

Con

In this debate we will examine, validate and debunk, alleged contradictions in the so-called Christian Bible.

To ensure the readers & judges have utmost clarity, I will highlight an issue that might become confusing during the argument phase if not laid out before hand. Most of us know what the word "Bible" means. This word is commonly used to refer to "all authoritative books based upon the Christian concept of a Divine God." In a scholarly debate, correct terminology should be used to avoid misinterpretation. First, there are three types of texts people interchangeably use to mean "Bible." Let us put them in proper perspective.

We have the most commonly called "Bible(s)" which are KJV, Gideon, NIV, NASB, Young's Literal Translation, etc. For clarity, I will call them "the English translations of the Bible". The second, Bible are the Dead Sea Scrolls & the countless manuscripts used to create an English translation of the Bible. I will refer to them as the "Hebrew [and/or] Greek manuscripts of the Bible.The third Bible, which only Biblical scholars of mindful of is the Hebrew [and/or] Greek Text of the Bible. The latter is read similar to the format & style of an English translation except in original Hebrew or Greek languages. There are many credible websites that offer a pdf-type format to read the transliterated versions of Hebrew & Greek. My opponent can choose to adhere to these references if desired; I will: English translations (ETs); Heb. and/or Greek manuscripts (HMs, GMs, HGMs); and Hebrew and/or Greek Text (HT, GT, HGT). The latter I will also refer to as "the Scriptures" since both the Hebrew Text & Greek Text are the original languages the Scriptures were transcribed into.
In addition;
the ET bears the words you only read in English translations (KJV, RSV, NIV, NASB, etc.) not foreign words.
HGM bear the original words of Hebrew, Greek, and some Aramaic (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.).
HGT or the Scriptures bear the Heb. & Gk. words taken from almost all the HGMs to compile one completed source.

Finally, I state that my position as the contradiction debunker should not be perceived as a formal advocacy of Christianity and it's concept of the Bible or God. I will argue from a pure scholarly POV. Not as a preacher, a wannabe theologian, a Christian enthusiast, a Bible-thumper, etc. I'm not attempting to convince you Jesus is real, hell is real, etc. This is a textual & context debate, not a theological & spiritual seminar. And to Pro, please limit your examples up to 3 alleged contradictions (as separate points) to ensure this debate reads smoothly and efficient.


dannyc

Pro

Con decided to change the format after I accepted. I don't accept his new format but somehow he refuses to acknowledge this and insists I go on with the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
ShadowKingStudios

Con

I ask the judges to review the comment section and review Con Comment #05 (it is labelled as such). Also judges, as you can see in my R1, I made an error with Proposition progression. R1 was acceptance, R2 was for Pro to be the first to make his first case. That wasn't possible so I amended the progression for me to give an Opening Statement that really wouldn't cause you to judge it during voting period. I even, in good sportmanship, removed my Secondary Evidence privilege, retained Pro's SE, and allowed Pro to have the last word instead of me. If any of that is unreasonable and unfair to your intellectual judgment then count it against me. if not, and if you choose too, count against Pro's illogical argument to botch this debate.

Finally, since Pro didn't provide any biblical contradictions for me to debunk, I cannot rebut "nothing". Pro needs to present some contradiction in R3 and a valid case in R4.
dannyc

Pro

dannyc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
ShadowKingStudios

Con

This is shameful. You have completely derailed my debate.
dannyc

Pro

In conclusion, this debate is void because the host changed the rules after I had accepted thereby breaking standard debating conduct.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
What?! Dude, the only difference is I make an opening statement, your secondary evidence remains while mine is removed, & you now have the last word. The only significant difference is you have THE LAST WORD & a chance to PROVIDE MORE EVIDENCE than me.

Con Comment #05
Posted by dannyc 2 years ago
dannyc
Yeah, that is a significant change to the rules, changing who goes first and who doesn't.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
The progress is still the same. the only difference now is I go first, you go last which was vice-versa.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
What do you mean "restart"? The debate is in progress.
Posted by dannyc 2 years ago
dannyc
Can we restart please? I didn't know we have a new format.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
Dannyc...
I was trying to change the format. It's not presented right. NEW FORMAT

(R2) Con's Opening Statements
(R2) Pro will present contradictions & argue why they are such.
(R3) Con will rebut Pro's contradictions & argue why they are not.
(R3) Pro will rebut Con's rebuttals of why they are not contradictions with Pro's Secondary Evidence.
(R4) Con will present Closing Statements of why they are not Contradictions (limit of 1 Opening Sentence; 3 Five Sentence Paragraphs; 1 Closing Sentence).
(R4) Pro will present a Closing Argument of why these are Contradictions (up to maximum 6,000 character limit).

OLD WAY
Doesn't allow Pro to go first as intended.

NEW WAY
Allows Pro's proposition to be first evidence reviewed.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
Con will rebut Pro's contradictions & argue why they are not.

That's clear that I'm going to debunk the alleged contradictions.
Anyhow I have to amend the round rules, there's no way for Pro to go first in R2 with the current proposition setup.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Your opening round leaves it unclear which side you are on. Against the bible as a [insert fallacy here]? Or against the idea of it contradicting itself?
No votes have been placed for this debate.