The Instigator
ShadowKingStudios
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
doomswatter
Pro (for)
Winning
16 Points

Biblical Contradictions, Part II

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 5 votes the winner is...
doomswatter
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 591 times Debate No: 58545
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

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

(R1) Con's Debate Guidelines & Pro's Acceptance
(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).

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.) ONLY UP TO THREE (3) Contradictions permitted.
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.

WARNING: Anyone accepting this debate purposely or accidentally Forfeits or Botches this Debate will be BLOCKED from all future debates I initiate.
doomswatter

Pro

I accept. Thanks for giving me a chance to debate you on this, Con.
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.
doomswatter

Pro

Thank you, Con. It was hard to choose, but I've settled on the following three contradictions for this debate:

27th or 25th Day?

2 Kings 25:27 - In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. He did this on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month.

Jeremiah 52:31 - In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the year Awel-Marduk became king of Babylon, on the twenty-fifth day of the twelfth month, he released Jehoiachin king of Judah and freed him from prison.

This one's pretty simple. Kings and Jeremiah disagree on which day of the twelfth month Jehoiachin was freed.

Jesus' Last Words

Matthew 27:46,50 - About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)...And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Luke 23:45-46 - Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”[a] When he had said this, he breathed his last.

John 19:30 - When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

This one is self-explanatory. Three of the gospel writers can't agree on Jesus' final words before his death.

Who Bought the Field?

Acts 1:18-19 - (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

Matthew 27:3,5-8 - When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders...So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

In Acts, Peter says that Judas bought the field with the money paid to him by the Pharisees, but Matthew states that Judas gave the money back and the Pharisees bought the field. Who is mistaken, Peter or Matthew? Either way, this is certainly a Biblical contradiction.

All three of these contradictions seem easy to understand to me, so I will let my opponent respond before I go into any more depth. Similar to what Con has stated, I am arguing from a scholarly POV. I would ask voters of a religious persuasion to please check their bias at the door and vote according to the strength of the arguments presented. Thank you.

----------

All Bible verses are from the NIV, and can be reference here: https://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 2
ShadowKingStudios

Con

Let’s use deductive reasoning to figure out the logical answer.

Pro stated:
"All Bible verses are from the NIV, and can be reference here:…" He gives you a link to the NIV "Bible."

Con states:

In the debate, "Is the NIV Bible Satanic?", I demonstrate that this translation is highly flawed with deceptive language that misrepresent the context of the original HGT. http://www.debate.org...
This source reveals the NIV cannot judged on veracity.

Pro stated:
"Kings and Jeremiah disagree on which day of the twelfth month Jehoiachin was freed...."
From his words we infer that the only alleged discrepancy is the day of the month, not the month.

Con states:
Let’s review the English words from another biblical sources, the NKJV (all scriptures from this source unless quoting Pro).

1.

Jeremiah reads: "lifted up the head of Jehoiachin…brought him out of prison." The Hebrew words translated "lifted" and "brought" are nasa & yatsa. Strong’s Concordance says the two Hebrew words bear a double application: literal and figurative (nasa, http://biblehub.com... & yats, http://biblehub.com... Look for the heading Strong's Exhaustive Concordance at the bottom.)


2.

2 Kings reads: "released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison." Again, the Hebrew word used is nasa.

3.

If nasa can be used literally or figuratively, logic tells us most empathetic that Jehoiachin couldn't literally be freed from prison on two separate dates unless he was re-arrested on the 26th. Logic tells us it is rigmarole to figuratively set Jehoiachin free on different dates. Logic tells us that our only remaining logical explanation is that nasa is figurative on the 25th day and literal on the 27th day.

4.

Example:
On the December 25th, Judge Littlefoot found the evidence against Sharon incomplete and ordered her immediate release. After going through the release process, Sharon finally walked out the county jail on the 27th.


The King of Babylon probably showing mercy or found a technicality and granted Jehoiachin’s freedom on the 25th. After the paperwork was completed, Jehoiachin was physically released on the 27th. Here we see, based on contextual application, the words of God, not contradicting themselves but providing details of two separate events that correlate.

Pro stated:

"This one is self-explanatory. Three of the gospel writers can't agree on Jesus' final words before his death."

Con states:
Pro’s statement is contradictory. He claims it is self-explanatory then implies that the self-explanation is 3 disagreements. I say this is contradiction under the use of textual scrutiny. Here's how:

1.
For the 3 writers to “disagree on what was said” they must actually state the disagreement and say what is wrong. None of them do so. Textual scrutiny. Emphasis mine throughout.
Matthew:
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?...And when Jesus cried out AGAIN with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit." (Matthew states Jesus said something else after My God, my God…. He states it precedes Jesus succumbing to death.)


Luke: "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit. Having said this, He breathed His last [breath]." (Luke states Jesus said something before breathing his last breath. He states it precedes Jesus succumbing to death. There is no contradiction. It's simply two bits of information spoken by the same person --Jesus.

John:
"when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said,
It is finished! And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit." (John states Jesus said words that preceded him succumbing to death. They don’t nullify what Luke claim but rather complete Jesus 3-part cry of death. Notice too, John claims the 3 words came after Jesus drunk the sour wine. What Pro didn’t illustrate to you was both Matthew & John note the sour wine element and that it chronologically divides both out loud cries.


Pro stated:

"Who is mistaken, Peter or Matthew?"

Con states:

Neither. It is the NIV who is mistaken. The NIV omitted these words: "Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity…(https://www.biblegateway.com...)." Strong's Concordance & lexicon only document Hebrew & Greek words found in the HGMs and HGT, not words that don't exist. Therefore these words exist in the original Bible and illustrate Judas's figurative purchase, which Peter was also noting.

1.
We see the writers connecting a literal instance (Priests’ field purchase) and a figurative instance (Judas’ wages of iniquity field purchased). No contradiction when one is recorded as literal & the other recorded as a figurative connected to the literal. (http://biblehub.com...)



Based on Hebraic (and Greek) textual language applied when equal English understanding & logical examples, we see no contextual contradictions. The errors for perceived biblical contradictions are: erred English translations (as I stated in R1), failure to check the original Hebrew & Greek wording; failure to do hermeneutics in both Heb., Grk., & Eng. context.

doomswatter

Pro

Let me remind everyone that this debate is about proving or debunking Biblical contradictions. What counts as "Biblical"? Con states in R1, under "Sources", "Holy Bible(s) of the Christianity religion", then in R2 describes three types of text that count as "Bibles", including English translations. Therefore, if I can show that even one of these "Bibles" contains a contradiction, it is, by definition, a "Biblical" contradiction.

Again, I do not have to prove that every Bible contains the same contradiction. A contradiction present in only one Bible is still a Biblical contradiction by definition.

Rebuttals

The NIV's Credibility

I'm sorry, but if Con wanted to limit the versions of the Bible that could be consulted, he should have done so in R1. As it stands, he did not exclude the NIV, which is very much a "Bible" by Con's own definition. I believe it falls in Con's "ET" category. Without specifying beforehand that the NIV was not a legitimate source, Con accepted it as a legitimate Bible for the purposes of this debate. Therefore, if a contradiction appears in the NIV, it is a Biblical contradiction.

However, even if Con had excluded the NIV, it would not help his case, as I will demonstrate below.

Kings & Jeremiah

This is a telling of exactly the same story by two different authors. All details are the same, including the word "nasa", with one exception: the day of the month (this is true in the NKJV as well as the NIV). Con says that this must mean that Jehoiachin was figuratively released on the 25th and then literally released on the 27th, and each author chose to only include one or the other in their account.

First, Con misunderstands the word "figurative". Figurative language is metaphorical.[1] Beginning the proceedings and paperwork for releasing someone is not a metaphor for releasing them. It is not figurative. It is still quite literally a release, just a different stage of it. This does not completely invalidate Con's argument; I merely point this out to show that a figurative interpretation does not apply in this case.

Second, and more damning for Con's argument, is the fact that there is no evidence that the authors were referring to different stages of a process. They both simply state that Jehoiachin was released from prison. One can imagine, as Con has, that Jeremiah is talking about the beginning of the process, while Kings is talking about the end, but such imagination is not supported by evidence. One can also imagine that little green Martians held the guards at gunpoint until they let Jehoiachin go, but such a detail is not supported in the text. All we have in the text is an almost identical telling of the same story, but with a discrepancy in days. There is no reason to believe that such a discrepancy was intentional, other than blind faith in the inerrancy of the Bible.

Jesus' Final Words

Matthew does not state that Jesus "said something else" after "My God, my God." He states simply that Jesus "cried out." Again, imagination is required to believe that the cry was one of the phrases recorded by Luke or John, and not simply a cry of pain, fear, or whatever. Such an idea is not supported by anything Matthew says.

However, such imagination can not even be used when we look at Luke and John. They do not record "My God, my God", nor any unintelligible cries coming before the wine. They each specifically record the words Jesus said right before expiring. Even if Con is correct, and "My God" came before the sour wine, while Luke's or John's statement came after, which was it? Luke says one thing, while John says another. There is no evidence to support that Jesus said both and the authors just failed to record both. Perhaps, since both books were not even written until 40+ years after Jesus' alleged death, the authors' memories had become fuzzy.

Judas' Field

Please remember that the NIV is still a Bible for the purposes of this debate. However, I have no problem with addressing Con's argument.

Con would have us believe that Peter is somehow being poetic or figurative when he states that Judas bought the field in which he died. I honestly don't see how such an interpretation makes any sense.

The "wages of iniquity" that Peter refers to are obviously the pieces of silver (wages) that Judas earned by betraying Jesus (iniquity). The same wages of iniquity that Judas returns to the Pharisees in Matthew, and which the Pharisees use to buy the field, contradicting Peters words in Acts. Con has given us no reason to believe that Peter was being figurative, and I can't conceive of a logical way to take those words figuratively.


Whether or not we accept the NIV as a Bible in this debate (and we should), I have shown that Con has done nothing but imagine details and add to the text. None of Con's assumptions thus far seem to be supported by scripture.

---------

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 3
ShadowKingStudios

Con

REBUTTAL


I'm sorry, but if Con wanted to limit the versions of the Bible that could be consulted, he should have done so in R1.

I didn't attempt to limit the versions, I merely gave evidence that Pro's biblical source isn't reliable in establishing, Does the original biblical source have textual & contextual contradictions? He used an unreliable sources to establish his points. Voting Criteria #5 explicit states: Who used the most reliable sources? This link illustrates why the NIV isn't reliable: (http://www.debate.org...) Also, unlike what Pro claimed, you cannot find me implying I "accepted [the NIV] as a legitimate Bible"; again, I merely informed you Christendom calls it a Bible.

Con misunderstands the word figurative. Figurative language is metaphorical

Did I misunderstand the word "figurative"? The interesting essential about this rebuttal is that it proves me right.

1st, as I pointed out the NIV is an unreliable sources to prove figurative equality between the English & Hebrew. 2nd, Let’s use the KJV to prove nasa in 2 Jeremiah 52:31 is figurative.

KJV: "king of Babylon…did lift up the head [nasa] of Jehoiachin…" (https://www.biblegateway.com...)

Pro’s words: "Figurative language is metaphorical"

Pro’s link: http://dictionary.reference.com......

Definition: "of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, especially a metaphor; metaphorical and not literal: The word 'head' has several figurative senses, as in 'She's the head of the company'."

Now Con: Pro's own link states head "has several figurative senses". The English wording of the KJV uses "lift up the head". A commentary by A. R. Fausset recognizes this phrase to be a figure of speech, a metaphor for showing favor, like an official pardon. (https://www.blueletterbible.org...)

Pro's action is itself a metaphor: he killed two birds with one stone. He proved two of my points with his one rebuttal point.

Second, and more damning for Con's argument, is the fact that there is no evidence that the authors were referring to different stages of a process.

Are the 2 authors referring to different stages of a process? The famous theological commentary dictated by Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown illustrates 2 different stages in the process (https://www.blueletterbible.org...). Gill's Exposition notes them as independent acts (http://biblehub.com...).

Matthew does not state that Jesus "said something else" after "My God, my God." He states simply that Jesus "cried out."

Mt. 27:41 Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying

Mt 27:50: Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice

What part of this isn’t clear that Jesus said something in a crying loud voice; then said something again in the same crying loud voice. The Greek word for voice is phóné & is defined by Greek linguistic scholars as a sound, noise, voice, language, dialect. The NASB translates it 102 times as voice. Thayer’s Lexicon says, phóné means, the sound of uttered words. ALL in link: (http://biblehub.com...) So in Matthew, Jesus second crying loud voice indicates he wept out some words.

Luke tells us Jesus words & death occurred between the 6th to 9th Hours.

Order:

6th Hour=11am-12pm=it was about the sixth hour (Lk. 23:44)

6th-9th Hour=11am-3pm= My God, my God…(Mt. 27:46)

Same as above=gave him to drink (Mt v.48) cried with a loud voice (Lk.v.46)=cried again with a loud voice (Jn. v.30)

9th Hour=2p-3p-=received the vinegar (Mt. v.48), Father, into your hands I commend my spirit (Lk. v.46) he said, It is finished (Jn. v.30)

Con would have us believe that Peter is somehow being poetic or figurative when he states that Judas bought the field…

First, I never said or alluded to Peter “somehow being poetic or figurative”. I said, Acts (https://www.biblegateway.com...) illustrate Judas's figurative purchase & Peter alluded to the figurative purchase, this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity. The Greek word translated purchase is ktaomai. It actually means acquire (http://biblehub.com...). Acquire also means, unlike purchase, to achieve as a result of one's behavior or activities.

Judas couldn’t do both: throw the money in the temple to the priests & used it to purchase a field. This is why the Greek word ktaomai means acquire not purchase, because Judas wages of iniquity acquired him a field—purchased by his cohorts, the priests. The priests literally purchased the field but Judas wages of wickedness figuratively acquired it.

doomswatter

Pro

To begin, I would like to point out again that the NIV is still a "Bible". Con did not say it could not be used (his link in R1 leads to the DDO home page, so even that can not be considered a strike against using the NIV). Therefore, contradictions within it are still Biblical contradictions by definition, no matter how "reliable" Con believes it to be. However, this is almost irrelevant, as I have and will continue to show that the contradictions remain no matter what source is consulted.

Rebuttals

1. Kings & Jeremiah

1a. Figurative

Con's argument here seems to be that "lift up the head", in Jeremiah 52:31, is figurative. This has nothing to do with the point. That line of the verse reads, "...lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah and brought him out of prison." "Brought him out of prison" is the part of this verse that is my focus. Kings says that Jehoiachin was released from prison on the 27th day, while Jeremiah says that his captors "brought him out of prison" on the 25th day. That is the contradiction I have been discussing, it is not figurative, and it has nothing to do with whether "lifted up the head" is figurative.

1b. Different Stages of a Process

The commentaries Con sources are not legitimate evidence. Neither source gives any reason beyond speculation to believe that the verses are referring to different stages of a process. The speculation of Bible-believing commentators is no more reliable than the speculation of my opponent. There is simply no evidence that the discrepancy between Kings and Jeremiah was meaningful or intentional.

Jeremiah is estimated to have been written between 630 and 580 B.C.[1], while 1 Kings is estimated to have been written between 560 and 540 B.C.[2] Since the story of Jehoiachin is so similar in both books, it is conceivable that the author of 1 Kings got at least some of his information from Jeremiah, which was possibly in circulation. In this case, it seems likely that the discrepancy between the two books is attributable to an error by the author or a copyist error some time afterward.

Whatever may be speculated about the discrepancy, Con has presented no evidence to suggest that the books are referring to different stages of the same process.

2. Jesus' Last Words

2a. Jesus' Cry in Matthew

Con still gives no reason to believe that Jesus' last cry before his death in Matthew was the last words detailed in Luke or John, nor that it was words of any sort at all. No matter what Thayer's Lexicon says, Con tells us that Greek linguistic scholars define phóné as "sound, noise, voice, language, dialect." He then tells us that the NASB translates it 102 times as "voice". Does the sound of a voice necessarily imply words? No. Almost every type of cry uses the voice whether or not intelligible words are spoken.

Con has shown no evidence that Jesus' last cry in Matthew is the final words recorded in Luke and John.

2b. Jesus' Death Timeline

The timeline of Jesus' death that Con provides does nothing to prove that Jesus uttered the words recorded in all three books. It is conceivable that he did say all three things back-to-back, and that each writer failed to record some of his words, but it is also conceivable that he did not and that the writers just differ on what they believe his last words were. The latter conception is supported by the text, while the former is not. Taken at face value, the text shows a disagreement, while imagination and speculation must be employed to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus actually said all three things.

3. Judas' Field

The crux of Con's argument concerning Judas' purchase of the field seems to be in the distinction between "purchase" and "acquire". This doesn't really change anything. Con does not explain how Judas figuratively acquired the field using the "wages of iniquity" while the Pharisees literally purchased the field using the silver that Judas returned.

When Judas killed himself in the field, did he "acquire" the field? No, not even figuratively. When the Pharisees bought the field, did Judas "acquire" the field? No, not even figuratively. The Pharisees acquired it. I can find no sensible way to infer a figurative acquisition of the field by Judas. A straightforward reading of the text, without adding nonexistent details and nonsensical metaphors, reveals a clear discrepancy between Acts and Matthew. Either Judas "acquired" the field using the money he earned betraying Jesus, and then killed himself there, or Judas returned the money out of guilt, killed himself, and then the Pharisees bought the field. Con has not given sufficient reason to believe that Acts is using figurative language.

The evidence still shows that Acts and Matthew contradict each other.

Conclusion

I believe I have sufficiently shown that the three contradictions I presented are indeed contradictions. Con's arguments were speculatory at best, and were simply not supported by the text itself. When determining if contradictions exist, the Bible must be read as any other book, without bias. An unbiased reading does not allow the addition of details or conditions that the text itself does not even contextually contain.

Thank you, Con, for a stimulating debate. Thank you, voters, for your time and consideration.


----------------

[1]http://www.gotquestions.org...
[2]http://www.gotquestions.org...
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
Cool. I'll accept soon.
Posted by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
I'll do better, I'll personalize it.
Posted by doomswatter 2 years ago
doomswatter
I will accept this if you will hold it until after 4th of July weekend.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ShadowKingStudiosdoomswatterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con suggested that the Bible only MIGHT have contradicted itself. Do not put doubt into your arguments!
Vote Placed by telisw37 2 years ago
telisw37
ShadowKingStudiosdoomswatterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Con blew it! NIV Duh! Should have referred to the Strongs for correct Hebrew.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
ShadowKingStudiosdoomswatterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's rebutals of 1st & 3rd rely on the *possibility* of figurative language. This is, to me, insufficient.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
ShadowKingStudiosdoomswatterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: In both the first and third contradiction, CON simply relied upon claiming that one side or the other of the contradictions was figurative, however, at best he showed how it could have been that way, not why it must have been that way. Unless sufficient reasoning is shown, the words on the page should be taken at face value. Regarding Jesus' final words: CON has showed that Jesus' words in Matthew may not contradict his words in Luke and John, but did not resolve the conflict between Luke and John. Arguments to PRO.
Vote Placed by daley 2 years ago
daley
ShadowKingStudiosdoomswatterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was able to give logical reasons why the first two apparent discrepancies were not valid contradictions, but his last task at reconciling Judas and the Pharisees both acquiring the field has failed. I didn't understand how a dead man could ACQUIRE a field, even figuratively. Con's source against the reliability of the NIV was unreliable.