The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is the bible inerrant?

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: 6/16/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 92488
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)




Topic: Is the bible inerrant? I am con. First round is for Introduction, definitions, rules and acceptance.INTRODUCTION:I chose daley as my opponent and challenged him. We negotiated and agreed on having several debates and this will be the first one of them. Actually we agreed on another topic but when I was reading I saw him saying "The Quran contains falsehoods. God cannot lie, he can't be wrong, therefore the Quran CANNOT be God's Word." debate on Quran with lighseeker and I wanted to start with this topic, I hope he will accept. if you want to see aforementioned debate: this debate, protestant bible is to be used. Other versions of the bible such as Catholic bible or eastern ethiopian orthodox bible are not allowed. Books of the Protestant bible can be used.In order to prove my case 1 error from the bible is enough, on the other hand my opponent needs to refute all of my claims, he does not need to argue or present evidence for the inerrancy of the bible. In other words, if I bring 50 arguements and if Daley refutes 49 and fails to refute single one, then the result of the debate is "The bible is not inerrant."Definitions:Bible:TheBible(fromKoine GreekτP48; βιβλ^3;α,tàbiblía, "the books"[1]) is a collection of textssacredinJudaismandChristianity. It is a collection ofscriptureswritten at different times by different authors in different locations.JewsandChristiansconsider the books of the Bible to be aproduct of divine inspirationor an authoritative record of the relationship betweenGodandhumans. [1]Protestant bible:AProtestant Bibleis anyChristian Bibletranslation or revision that comprises 39 books of theOld Testament(according to theJewish Hebrew Bible canon, sometimes known as theprotocanonical books) and the 27 books of theNew Testamentfor a total of 66 books. The Protestant Bible excludes the 15 books ofBiblical apocryphaor other writings.[2] For the books included in the protestant bible, see [3].Inerrant:free from error[4]error:something that is not correct : a wrong action or statement[5]refute:to prove that (something) is not true[6]prove:to show the existence, truth, or correctness of (something) by using evidence, logic, etc.[7]If further or other definitions is needed my opponent must state it in comments or with message. He is not allowed to accept the debate and define it on his own. if this rule is violated, the debate is ended and opponent is to penalised with voting me.RULES:1. no defamation, ad hominem or personal attack.2. protestant bible is to be used.3.Original Greek/Hebrew language is final say regarding translation issues.4. Arguements must be based on protestant bible, no other books or scholars. to argue "what you say is wrong, this scholar says so, that is the proof of why you are wrong" is not accepted. It means if the bible said "monkeys and donkeys are the same thing" my oppoenent can not argue with his own view like "in those verses what bible actually says is they both belong to animalia", if my opponent thinks bible says so he must show us from the bible, if the arguement is not from the bible that arguement is not accepted and can be dropped, dismissed.The same goes for me.If further rules are needed opponent must state it in comments or message.REFERENCES:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]


The Bible I will be using in this debate is the NIV, which I believe to be one of the most accurate translations of the Original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek of the Bible. I appreciate that my opponent said that what the original language says is the final authority for what the Bible says, so if a so-called contradiction exists in let's say the King James Version (which is very poorly translated in some areas) but cannot be found in the oldest Greek or Hebrew manuscripts, this obviously won't be valid in this debate as an error.

I would also ask my opponent not to list too many examples of errors in the Bible, because while its very easy to list two verses side by side and say, "that's an obvious contradiction," it takes a lot more word space to go into detail and provide the explanation, the historical background, the proof from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and lexicons about what the original says, etc, in order to clarify those passages and show that they are not contradictory. So while I will try to be as concise as I can in giving explanations of anachronism, historical or scientific inaccuracies, and contradictions claimed to be in the Bible, it must be taken into account that if I'm given too long a list of problems I won't have enough space to go into the necessary detail to fully deal with them all in a way that does justice to them. So I do hope my opponent isn't actually planning to give 50 errors in the Bible, and that this was just for illustrative purposes that he said that in his opening remarks where he set the rules of this debate, to which I am happy to agree.

I look forward to a good debate, and I thank Con for this opportunity to defend the Word of God, and show him that the Bible, in its original form, contains not even 1 single error.
Debate Round No. 1


I am going to bring up to 5 arguements so that my opponent shall not have character insufficiency.


if prophecy is wrong, it qualifies to be error. It is written in the bible, NIV Ezekiel 26:7-14:
"For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar[b] king of Babylon, king of kings,with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillarswill fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord."
Here, Bible/God of the bible says he will bring Nebuchadnezzar against Tyre [e.g to destroy it].
Debunking: Tyre still exists and many things are built there[1][2], so the phrase "it will never be rebuilt" is wrong.
DEBUNKING HISTORICALLY: Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy the tyre, he just besieged it for 13 years, then the city submitted via compromise and accepted Babylonian authority. [3]

3 authors recorded the words of Jesus which he said just before he died. They seem to contradict each other. First, let us define contradiction.
contradiction: a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true[4]
What 3 authors wrote contradict each other, all 3 can not be true at the same time, at least 2 of them must be wrong. Here what authors say:
NIV LUke 23:46 "46 Jesus called out with a loud voice,“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”[e] When he had said this, he breathed his last." Luke mentions what he said just before he died.
NIV 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." It too mentions what Jesus said just before he died. It is a different sentence than what Luke recorded.
NIV Matthew 27:46-50 "
About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice,“Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).[d]

47 When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.”

48 Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. 49 The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”

50 And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit."

It too mentions what Jesus said just before he died. So, what did Jesus say just before he died? what was that sentence? was it "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." as Luke recorded or was it "It is finished" as John recorded? or did jesus cry in a loud voice like Matthew recorded?


Again, two contradictory accounts of the death of King Josiah. In Kings 23 we are told that he was killed in Megiddo. NIV Kings 23:29-30

"29 While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Necho faced him and killed him at Megiddo.30 Josiah’s servants brought his body in a chariot from Megiddo to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah and anointed him and made him king in place of his father."
Here, it says: Necho Killed him at Megiddo means he died at Megiddo. considering it says "Necho killed him" and "His body was taken to his chariot", so he was already dead, the book says his body was taken, not he was taken. if he was alive it would have been written he was taken. some one could not have been killed if he is still alive. so, he was dead ad Megiddo, at the time his body was taken into chariot he was dead. It was corpse. It contradicts 2 Chronicles 35:23-24

NIV 2 Chronicles 35:23-24 "23 Archers shot King Josiah, and he told his officers, “Take me away; I am badly wounded.” 24 So they took him out of his chariot, put him in his other chariot and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died. He was buried in the tombs of his ancestors, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him."

IT says he died in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is shown as the place he died in, but the previous account says he was killed at Megiddo. so, where did he die? at Megiddo or in Jerusalem? was the thing that was taken to chariot was a corpse as 2 Kings say or was it alive person as 2 Chronicles say?
Either one needs to be false if not both of them are false.

This one will be hard with NIV but I will try.

In exodus 6:3 in original Hebrew it says "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. "[5] NIV gives it differently, NIV says "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty,[a] but by my name the Lord[b] I did not make myself fully known to them" but as we agreed, what the original language says is the final say, we can conclude the verse actually says "by my name Yahweh I was not known to them." It is also supported by some other translations:

New living translation: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El-Shaddai--'God Almighty'--but I did not reveal my name, Yahweh, to them."
English Revised version: "and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH I was not known to them"
In original Hebrew, it says "by my name Yahweh"[5]. so, this verse says "God did not make his name known to Abraham" but a verse which took place earlier, which describes the event that took place long ago from the time this verse was said says God did reveal his name:

NIV Genesis 15:7: "He also said to him, “I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it.”" but when we again look at the original hebrew word, it too says Yahweh.[6]

The hebrew word used instead of Lord in both verses is " יְ הוָה", they both are transliterated as "ieue"[5] and [6]. IN both verses, the same word/name is used in hebrew, no matter the correct translation is lord or yahweh, the name which was said to be not known to Abraham in Exodus 6 was told to Abraham in Genesis 15:7.

In short, at one place Lord says to Abraham that "I am Yahweh who brought you...." but after a long time the same Lord says "I am not known by my name Yahweh to Abraham". If he said his name in the past, then the statement "I did not reveal my name" can not be true since he said his name in the past, before tha latter statement.


In Matthew 1:23 the author claims "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"

with that said, Matthew references the Old testament. it is from Isaiah 7:14, but Isaiah 7:14 does not say virgin in Hebrew, it says young woman. The hebrew word that is quoted as virgin is "עלמה" which is transliterated as "almah".[7] The hebrew word almah does not mean virgin, it means "a young, unmarried woman of marriageable age"[8] so, that is said through the prophet was not "the virgin shall conceive", it was "the young woman will concieve", but matthew says it was "the virgin". Here, Matthew is wrong since it was not said as Matthew said it was said.
There is a difference with virgin and young woman.
a young woman may be virgin and at the same time, old woman can also be virgin.
a young woman can be nonvirgin as well. it means, "virgin woman too is a young woman, so here Matthew is not wrong" does not work. since young woman can be nonvirgin, Isaiah 7:14 can not be claimed to support, to prophecy the virgin birth. As much as young woman can be virgin, so can be nonvirgin woman.

Matthew either misquoted or did not understand the word but it does not negate the fact that he was wrong. I leave it to my opponent and wish him good luck. I hope I have located, quoted sources correctly and I did not confuse them.




Eze 26:3 NIV "therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves." The term Adonai, Soverign Lord, places God in charge of this move against Tyre. He is the one who cause "many nations" to come up.

Vs 4: "They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock." We see again the same pairing of God and the nations: "they" and "I." The nations will scrape Tyre off, destroy the walls, and break down the towers. ANY nations are eligible for this action.

Vs 5: "Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD. She will become plunder for the nations." Once again, the I/nations pair is still in view here.

Vss 6-7 "and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD.
For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army." Adonai now brings on a specific attacker - Nebuchadnezzar. This brings on the first of "the nations" against Tyre. Nebuchadnezzar comes WITH all these things, and now note how the pairing changes:

Vs 8: "He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you." Notice how the pairing I/they is not used, but it is now "he" -Nebuchadnezzar who is "in charge" of the scene. And of course "he" personifies his own army here, and those things with him (horses, etc) This language continues in verses 9-11, personifying his troops and horses under him: the horsemen, chariots and wagons are all "his." "His" horses will trample, "he" will kill; but note the change in verse 12.

Vs 12: "They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea." We return to "they" for the first time since v. 4. And:

Vs 13: "I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more."

We also now return to "I": Adonai, the Soverign Lord. Then it continues:

Vs 14: "I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the LORD have spoken, declares the Sovereign LORD."

Ezekiel gives us two pairings: the I/they of Adonai the sovereign, leading the nations; and the he/personified-possession army of Nebuchadnezzar. Ezekiel therefore indicates that Nebuchadnezzar will do specific actions, and that "nations" will perform certain actions. Nebuchadnezzar brings one of those nations on the scene, but the language tells us that the actions of 3-5 and 12-14 may be performed by any nations God brings against Tyre and need not be the actions of Nebuchadnezzar.

Verses 3-5 and 12-14 are "I/they" verses -- and form a minor chiastic structure around the central core of verses describing Nebuchadnezzar's actions alone. The linguistic pattern of this passage indicates that the "they" of v. 12 are the nations of v. 4. Not only is the pronoun ("they") the same, but in addition, only in these verses is Adonai the sole leader, and two unique actions -- net spreading, scraping -- are the same as those ascribed to the nations in 3-5. So "they" in v. 12 does not refer to Nebuchadnezzar and his army; they, as "nations" brought by Adonai not only before but AFTER the attack by Nebuchadnezzar, are different nation brought against Tyre in its history following. Therfore, I contend that this passage does not teach that Nebuchadnezzar would be the one to destroy the city; that was the job of "the nations," and it was Alexander the Great and his army which qualify to be among them who would conquer it. But its final destruction would be the result of more than one enemy invasion and not Nebuchadnezzar alone.

Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon was the first of the nations to come against Tyre. Alexander's forces were put together from a coalition of Greek city-states. Each of these was an independant nation unto itself. Alexander's father, Philip II, unified through war these city-states,as well as the regions of Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece proper under his rule - giving his son the unified force he needed to complete his conquest. This was a coalition composed of many nations - and thus fulfills the prophecy that "many nations" would come upon Tyre to seige her. Alexander also got help from his friends in Macedon and from the Phoenician city-states Aradus, Byblos, and Sidon; ships also came from Enylos, Soli, Mallos, Rhodes, Lycia, and Cyprus to help Alexander overcome Tyre. (Wallace B. Fleming, The History of Tyre. New York: Columbia U. Press, 1915, p.58) With the exception of Macedon, each of these was an entirely separate nation from those in Alexander's land forces.

What about the claim the city would never be rebuilt? Compare this to an inscription by the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III: "I slew the Denyon in their islands, while the Tjekker and Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Washesh of the sea were made non-existent, captured all together and brought on captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore." (Moshe and Trude Dothan, Peoples of the Sea, p.27) Cleary when Ramsses tells us his enemies were "made non-existent," he was not meaning this literally, since he goes on to indicate they were captured. In the Victory Stele of Merneptah, we have more trash talk like, "Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent..." Literal descriptions (conquered, seized) are mixed with clearly metaphorical ones (made non-existent), and that is what we have here. "Never be rebuilt" is trash talk like that of Ramesses speaking of his non-existent, captured people, so common in the ANE.

Even if we take "never be rebuilt" literally, its very possible that the final nation in "they" ("the nations") prophesied to ruin Tyre is yet to come. The last nation that would finish off Tyre (rather literal or metaphorical) isn't named in this prophecy, but it certainly was not intended to be Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar.

The Virgin Birth
The Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament from about 200 B.C. or before predates all existing Hebrew manuscripts we have of Isaiah, and is itself based on an even earlier Hebrew text. It was used by the early Christians, especially Paul, and at Isaiah 7:14 it has the word "virgin" (`0;^5;`1;_2;^9;_7;_9;`2; - "parthenos"), showing that in Matthew's day this is what the text said. Matthew was a lot closer to both the Greek and Hebrew texts available in the first century C.E., and in a better position to know what they said than commentors who came later. So the oldest text agrees that Isaiah was talking about a virgin. In fact, even the "almah" " the "maiden" or "young girl," was usually a virgin among Jews in pre-Christian times. "Almah (עלמה) or plural: alamot (עלמות) is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl." ( Since Jewish custom held that a young woman (almah)was to remain a virgin till marriage (Deu 22:13-21), even such a young woman (almah) would normally be a virgin, hence, Matthew is perfectly justified in his rendering weather the Hebrew of his day said betulah (virgin) or almah (maiden).

Jesus Last Words
The order of events, putting these three passages together:
1.Jesus said, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani?"
2.They gave Him vinegar
3.Jesus said, "It is finished"
4.Crying out in a loud voice, Jesus said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"
5.He bowed His head and gave up the ghost

The Greek text is very clear about which of these is actually Jesus last words. Luke 23:46 says in the Greek: "Jesus said Father into [the] hands of you I commit the spirit of me THIS MOREOVER HAVING SAID he breathed his last." This is clear that having said "into your hands I commit my spirit," he died on those words. This is not the case with the statement "it is finished." Here the Greek text says "Jesus he said it has been finished AND HAVING BOWED THE HEAD he yielded up - his spirit." This says he died, not when he spoke the words "it is finished," but when "he bowed his head."

We agreed that the original language determines what the text really says. The term "with that" in the NIV here is not in the original Greek. Removing the added phrase leaves us with "When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." [full stop, another sentence, another point begins now] He bowed his head and gave up his spirit." It does not seem that the text is saying that the bowing of his head and death follow immediately after "it is finished" with nothing in between. If I said, "I went to the store. I bought some tuna." Does that mean I didn't say "good morning" when I got to the cashier before I paid for the tuna? No. Between "it is finished" and his bowing the head in death, Jesus said "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." That statement was given in a loud cry as reported by Matthew 27:50.

God's Name
Exodus 6:3 is talking about when God "appeared" to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - when they saw Him. On those occasions He did not reveal to them that His name was Jehovah. That doesn't show they did not know His name by other means. Also, "know" is beings used in a theologically significant way. W.E.Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words shows they knew God as Yahweh by intellect but had not EXPERIENCED the meaning of HIs name.

Out of space, will answer the last question and say more on Exo 6:3 next round.
Debate Round No. 2


Pro's response can be listed: 1. "nations would destroy Tyre, Nebu was just one of them." To support his claim he brings us "they/he" difference in the verses 2. It was to be never built again was a metaphor or if it is a prophecy that is yet to take place.

Rebuttal: 1. even if we assume so, it is still wrong because: a)bible says "Nebuchadnezzar will; direct the blows of his battering rams against tyre's walls, demolish Tyre's towers, will break through the walls of Tyre and enter it,his horses will trample the streets, and he will make pillars fall to the ground."

Nebuchadnezzar failed in all of this. Tyre withstood the siege, Nebu didn't break through into the tyre, didn't demolish the towers, didn't trample the streets, didn't make pillars fall . Their defence prevented Nebu from conquering them. Nebu withdrew his army.
b)they/he: In bible, we can see many places in which an army/people is referred in singular, in the name of their leader as he and in plural. One example is Ezekiel 29 says "I will make a horn grow for the Israelites, and I will open your mouth among them".As we can see, here a people is referred in plural. This shows that an army can be referred in plural or singular and "he/they" does not give a difference." Ezekiel starts with what Yahweh intended to do and then gives details of how it is going to happen. It starts saying Nebuchadnezzar is the one God will bring. "they" appears when things Nebu is supposed to do are listed, just after what "the hoofs of his horses will cause" is written, then comes "they", as a pronoun for that army. In context, "They" explicitly refers to the army of Nebuchadnezzar and many nations refer to his army. His army was consisted of many nations who were under command of him. Thus, "many nations" came to Tyre with Him, considering Babylon had many nations and the "they" pronoun comes in the list of what Nebuchadnezzar's army is supposed to do, it is explicit that Nebu was explicitly said to destroy Tyre which he failed.
c)Ezekiel's testimony: later on Ezekiel29:18-19 admits Nebu's failure. He says "he drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre" Bible too says he got no reward, bible says God will give egypt as a reward to Nebuchadnezzar. It too is a wrong, God did not give Egypt as a reward nor did Nebu conquered Egypt. He invaded and defeated Egyptian army before he failed in Tyre but it does not apply to Ezekiel 29 since Ezekiel 29 took place after his missions to Egypt and Tyre. After Tyre, he was not given Egypt. With Ezekiel 29, we can see two failed prophecies: failure of Nebu in Tyre, failure of God in giving Egypt as a reward.

2)What pharaoh said has nothing to do with bible thus proves nothing. Bible was explicit, literal, clear in saying "it is to be built never" considering "God intended to make it bare rock for fishers." About the nations: as explained above, Nebu was with many nations, considering Nebu was the details of Yahweh's plan, that nations were to come with him.
YET TO COME? as we see from the context, Tyre was to be destroyed by Nebu and to be never built again. Things both are wrong. Here bible is wrong at least once: Tyre was not conquered, destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar 2. It was and is still built after the failure of Nebuchadnezzar.

1. What Septugaint or its translator (70 jews) says is irrevelant and proves nothing. What the meaning, definition of the word is important and its definition does not have definition as virgin. if 70 jews translate it as "lesbian", does it mean that almah means lesbian?
2. Even if almahs were usually virgin (which is assumption of PRO), it means there were some who were "nonvirgin almahs." so, Isaiah 7:14 was not talking about a virgin since almah can include nonvirgins as well. btw, almah is "unspecified woman or a woman past puberty, regardless of sexual status"
3. " Since Jewish custom held that a young woman (almah)was to remain a virgin till marriage (Deu 22:13-21), even such a young woman (almah) would normally be a virgin, hence, Matthew is perfectly justified"
rebuttal:1. young woman does not mean unmarried, a woman can be married and still young which means she is almah. almah may be (but does not have to be) an unmarried virgin or a married young woman. is in no way justified for his misquoting is like "IN american culture almost all adolescents are unmarried. The russian word for adolescent is "padrostok"(transliterated), russian for unmarried is nizamuzhnyaya, so it is ok to translate adolescent into russian as nizamuzhnyaya (unmarried). However, adolescent and unmarried are two different groups, hence it is wrong to call one for another. almah and virgin is like this, in no way one can be used for another one.
as we can see, Matthew is in no way justified for his error/misquoting.
Matthew is calling it "fullfilling what God has said through the prophet", by saying that Matthew implies it was a prophecy which indeed was not. It doesn't/can't refer to the yet to come baby Jesus. isaiah starts to describe the military plight faced by King Ahaz, he was in fear, in verse 10 Isaiah tells Ahaz to ask from God for a sign which Ahaz refuses to do. then Isaiah says as a sign "the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son" and later on he says before that child learns to choose the right and reject the wrong the army of two kings of whom Ahaz was afraid of was to be Abandoned. the child that was told in Isaiah 7:14 was to be born and to learn to choose the right and the wrong in the lifetime of the two army, Ahaz and two kings who all died several centuries before the birth of Jesus, thus Matthew saying "[the birth of Jesus from virgin Mary] fullfilled the prophecy [told in Isaiah 7:14]" is an error. That is not a prophecy about the maschiah, can't refer to Jesus.
in two verses of Matthew he is wrong twice: 1. a mistranslation 2. non-prophecy
I leave them upon the opponent.

Now PRO sets orders for events during crucifixion. He mixes gospels. His order is not based on the scripture, it is his or somebody else's own opinion at best. Do the gospel authors claim to have written in an agreement to write in a way if other missed something we will fullfill it? Gospels are written at a different time by different [unknown] authors, thus we have no any [even biblical] evidence for they wrote it in a way PRO claims. if we have, I ask him to share.
He says Jesus died with the words recorded in Luke which may be the case but so can be the other gospel. Both are possible.
PRO: "This is not the case with the statement "it is finished." Here the Greek text says "Jesus he said it has been finished AND HAVING BOWED THE HEAD he yielded up - his spirit." says he died, not when he spoke the words "it is finished," but when "he bowed his head"
This says he said and bowed his head and gave his spirit. Then, how does it suggest something other than "died with that last words?" THe order is: He said it is finished, bowed his head and died. THere is no anything that diverts, diffrentiates the events or correspons with what Luke wrote. if there is, PRO must share it.
PRO "Removing the added phrase leaves us with "When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." [full stop, another sentence, another point begins now] He bowed his head and gave up his spirit"
Again, wrong. not full stop, there is kai between them, not full stop. Kai means and. PRO is wrong here. he is misquoting.
PRO "Between "it is finished" and his bowing the head in death, Jesus said "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." That statement was given in a loud cry as reported by Matthew"
It is just an assumption of PRO which has no support from the gospels/bible. if it has, I ask PRO to show us. AS long as he does not show, it remains bare assertion.

pro: "Exodus 6:3 is talking about when God "appeared" to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - when they saw Him. On those occasions He did not reveal to them that His name was Jehovah"
HE did reveal his name Yahweh. Genesis 15:7 "He also said to him, “I am the YAHWEH, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it" in hebrew in this verse he says "I am Yahweh"
PRO: "That doesn't show they did not know His name by other means"
the point is not did they know by other means, here PRO tries to change goal posts, the point is: was Yahweh make his name known to them? they knew his name, he revealed his name to them as recorded in Genesis 15.
IN Exodus 6:3 God says by his name Yahweh he was not known to them. In original language, the word fully, as translated by NIV, does not exist. so, Yahweh says in Exo 6:3 "by my name Yahweh I was not known to them" but he revealed his name in Genesis 15.
He brings someone else's dictionary to support his case. I will rebut it in 3 ways:
1)What dictionary says proves nothing, what bible says means something
2)PRO says they knew by intellect, not experience. again, it is wrong, they did experience his name when Yahweh said to them "I am Yahweh who brought you..." in Genesis 15. we can see they experienced his name, dictionary says not by experience. now we go on to point#3
3)if dictionary contradicts what bible says, then dictionary is wrong. as shown in point#2, dictionary contradicts what bible says.
PRO: "W.E.Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words shows they knew God as Yahweh by intellect but had not EXPERIENCED the meaning of HIs name"
The contradiction remains and at least one of them is wrong: was the name Yahweh revealed to Abraham as Yahweh did in Genesis 15 or was it not revealed as Yahweh said in Exodus 6:3?!

Good luck to PRO. not to force him into character insufficiency I chose to write rebuttals in great detail rather than making more arguements.


daley forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I am not going to argue in this round so that my opponent will not face more character insufficiency. He has already faced.

I wanted to remind him that he shall not come with new arguements in his last round, he should just focus on previous arguements because I can not respond back if he brings new arguement which may seem to be true even though that indeed is false. (speaking hypothetically. I am not implying my opponent will do such dirty tactiscs, I wrote it just to make what I am saying more clear)

I chose him as my opponent since he works in church and an experienced DDO debater who won 3/4th of his debates, I ask you not to penalise him for forfeiting when you vote. As he explained, the reason he forfeited was not to avoid the debate, the reason he forfeited was due to being overbusy. so, he will argue in the upcoming round.

Good Luck.


Ezekiel 29 is not the same in structure as Ezekiel 26, so my opponent's comparison doesn't work. There are no "nations" in view in this short passage to serve as candidates for an antecedent of the pronoun "they", or anything else that can serve as a possible antecedent. There is no chaistic structure as in Ezekiel 26. There is also no "I/They" pairing and consistent comparability of unique actions.

The Metaphor of the Waves in Ezekiel 26:3 Shows One Nation After Another is Involved: "Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves" (Ez 26:3). Contrary to claims made by my opponent that this passage begin with Nebuchadnezzar before it uses "they" to mean his army, verse 3 tells us "I will bring MANY NATIONS against you" before Nebuchadnezzar's name is mentioned. So more than one nation is involved in this.

Nebuchadnezzar did break down walls and pillars and ride through the streets of the "settlements on the mainland" of verse 8 which was indeed known in history as the Old Tyre. Ancient historian Diodorus Siculus, who lived from approximately 80-20 B.C., wrote extensively on Alexander the Great's attack on Tyre. (see Siculus, 1963, 17.40-46) Siculus stated: "Immediately he demolished what was called Old Tyre and set many tens of thousands of men to work carrying stones to construct a mole" (17.40). So it was from the stones of Old Tyre that Alexander built his mole, showing they were indeed two Tyres. Curtius Rufus noted: "Large quantities of rock were available, furnished by old Tyre" (4.2.18) Maria Aubet, Professor of History at Barcelona, tells us in her book - The Phonecians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade, that there were two Tyres.

Tyre was originally an island "surrounded by the sea" (Ez 27:32). "Today, " Aubet says, "Tyre is a peninsula joined to the mainland." The peninsula was created by the silting up of a mole or causeway built by Alexander the Great in 332 BC (Aubet 1993: 27). Aubet notes that there was a city on the mainland known as "ancient Tyre" to Roman historians, also referred to as "Palaeo-Tyre." The Egyptian and Assyrian texts call it Uzu/Ushu. The scribe in Papyrus Anastasi I (1290"1186 BC), for example, says,

What is Uzu like? They say another town is in the sea named Tyre-the-Port. Water is taken to it by boats (Wilson 1969: 477). Aubet adds:

It was considered to be a second Tyre on the mainland and lasted as a satellite city until it was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar (1993: 30).
Greek historian Menander who said

Sidon and Akko and Old Tyre and many other cities also revolted from Tyre and surrendered to the king of Assyria (i.e., Shalmaneser V, 726"722; Katzenstein 1997: 225"36).

So the very things you claim Nebuchadnezzar didn't do to Tyre, he did do to Old Tyre. Then then the rest of the destruction is done by "the nations" as I already pointed out. Ezekiel 29 is talking about Tyre number 2, whereas Nebuchadnezzar did succeed trampling the city on the mainland which was also Tyre.

Since the word for "towers" is used in the Bible to refer to places that are merely lookouts that are higher than the rest of the city, and since "columns" can refer to an edifice even as small as the altar set up by Jacob, I see no reason why these terms cannot be applied to structures on the mainland which we both agree Nebuchanezzar destroyed. There is no reason why the two words cannot refer to less-prominent structures, or else be understood as metaphors for military strength.

This Tyre was literally never rebuilt, which satisfies Con's desire for everything in the Bible to be literal, but I maintain that trash-talk was common in the Ancient Near East, I gave an example from Egypt, and we could expect the same from Jews. The Bible also describes nations as "nothing," should we take that literal too? (Isaiah 40:15)

No, the LXX is not irrelevant, because it's older than the Mesoretic Text from which you take the word "almah." If the oldest Greek text has "virgin," and it's translated from an even older Hebrew text, its reasonable to think that older Hebrew text also said virgin before it was changed to "young woman" or "maiden." In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls in Isaiah 7:14 has Yahweh which is changed to Adonai in the Mesoretic text, so there is no denying the more recent Hebrew texts were altered. But Matthew had access to much older Hebrew documents that we do today, so he is likely to be correct. In fact, the Syriac Peshitta says "chaste maiden," which agrees with "virgin" since a fornicator wouldn't be considered chaste. Let me also say no contradiction exists between "young woman" and "virgin" because a young woman can be a virgin and vice versa, so there is no contradiction here. Con is assuming that because a maiden doesn't have to me a virgin, that therefore she wasn't a virgin. This is his own speculation.

In fact, even the "almah" " the "maiden" or "young girl," was usually a virgin among Jews in pre-Christian times. "Almah (עלמה) or plural: alamot (עלמות) is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl." ( Since Jewish custom held that a woman young was to remain a virgin till marriage (Deu 22:13-21), even such a young woman (almah) would normally be a virgin, hence, Matthew is perfectly justified in his rendering weather the Hebrew of his day said betulah (virgin) or almah (maiden).

Con wants to know how a baby born 700 years after Ahaz could be a "sign" to him, well, it wasn't. Ahaz rejected the sign, and so God gave the sign, not to Ahaz specifically, but to "the house of David." (Isaiah 7:13-14) Ahaz no longer existed when Jesus was born, but the house of David sure did. This brings up a question I'd like Con to answer: if this young woman (almah) wasn't a virgin, then how was this quite normal, non-miraculous birth supposed to be a sign? What would be so special about that? Young women were giving birth for thousands of years! Why would the prophet point to something so natural and unspectacular as a "sign"? A literal virgin birth makes more sense of the text in terms of the prophet's use of this birth as a special sign.

When offered a sign, Ahaz replies defiantly: "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord." (Isaiah 7:12) Yahweh is inviting him to turn back to true worship and is offering to strengthen his faith by performing a sign. However, Ahaz prefers to seek protection elsewhere. It is possibly at this point that the king sends a large sum of money to Assyria, seeking help against his northern enemies. (2 Kings 16:7, 8) Meanwhile, the Syro-Israelite army encircled Jerusalem and the siege was on. With the king's lack of faith on his mind, Isaiah says: "Hear ye now, O house of Daid; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?" (Isaiah 7:13) Yes, Jehovah can get tired of constant defiance. Observe, too, that the prophet now says "my God," not "your God." An ominous change! When Ahaz rejects Jehovah and turns to Assyria, he loses a fine opportunity to restore his relationship with God.

Far from telling Ahaz God was with him, Isaiah terrified him with news that disaster was coming at the hands of Assyria. (Isaiah 7:17, 20) The context of Isaiah 7:14 therefore shows Isaiah was not saying Immanuel would be a sign in their time that God was with Ahaz; he was pointing far into the future, for in his day, God had abandoned Ahaz. Before Jesus reached the age to chose good over bad everything prophesied to happen regarding Assyria had happened, so Jesus still fits the bill fine.

Jesus Last Words
"Jesus he said it has been finished AND having bowed the head he yielded up - his spirit." Notice the conjuction "and" between "it is finished" and "having bowed the head." Con is assuming that the way the Bible is written, the authors had to mean that these two things happened immediately next to each other with nothing inbetween, leaving no room for Jesus to say "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Compare Luke 10:34 "He went to him AND bandaged his wounds." Now, is it possible that this good Samaritan shook him to see if he was alright, and said "Sir? Can you hear me?" before he bandaged his wounds? Of course. Just because the writer doesn't see a need to mention every detail of what was said doesn't mean nothing more was uttered. He died when he bowed his head, but the word "and" doesn't show that no time or speaking passed between saying it's finished, and bowing his head. As I said, the term "with that" is not in the Greek text of John 19:30. So Jesus didn't die "with that" statement. The word "and" doesn't remove the possibility that the said other things which this author didn't mention but were mentioned by others.

God's Name
After more research I've modified my position on this. God does not say 'I did not make my NAME known', but rather 'I did not make MYSELF known to them AS YAHWEH'...In other words, His dealings with Abraham was 'according the character of an El Shaddai' instead of 'according to the character of a YAHWEH'. (The content of the name YAHWEH was about to be revealed in the massive display of power, judgment and redemption called the EXODUS!)... Abraham didn't know the full significance of the name Yahweh.

In 2 Kg 23:30 the word is מֵת (met) which is the Qal Active Participle form of the verb מות (mut), "to die." There is a lot of flexible range in meaning as a participle. It is used in some cases to refer to the possibility of dying (without it actualizing), such as in Gen 20:3 ("you are a dead man" [ESV/NKJV] to Abimelech who did not in fact die here. If we translate it as "dying" on his way to Jerusalem, the problem disappears. Out of space
Debate Round No. 4


sources are shown in previous rounds. I am in time trouble and post what I have been able to write in this time. note that, I was going to work more on any arguement I have been able to post here but I had no time. I think we need to restart the debate later, it is up to PRO. if he wants it to be voted, do. if he allows us to abandon this debate, do it please.


Ezekiel 29&one nation after others: PRO just assumes there is a divergence with "he/they" but that is not a divergence since a nation can be referred in singularity or plurality in the bible, if scripture always referred to a single nation/army in singularity then it would have made sense but scripture does not, Ezekiel 29 shows us that a nation can be referred in plurality, thus PRO's arguement fails. It does not need to be in same structure, as long as the nation is referred in plurality by Ezekiel, so he/they does not give us any divergence/difference.
in order to prove his case he must use biblical sources, not his own assumptions.

NEBU'S FAILURES: PRO starts with saying Nebu did break the walls of tyre, and then lists what Alexander the Great did which is out of our topic. Nebuchadnezzar failed in all what he was supposed to do to Tyre. He besieged it 13 years, unable to break the defence he withdrew his army. his failure is also mentioned in Ezekiel 29, which I quoted on my previous round. Ezekiel admitted he got no reward for Tyre, then Egypt was to be given to him as a gift which is also something did not come.

1. Nebuchadnezzar failed in all and Tyre still exists. PRO goes on repeating the biblically unsupported assumption of his which means nothing. as shown, a single country/nation can be referred in both singularity and plurality. The difference he assumes to exist is just his assumption. Under Nebu was many nations that came to Tyre and did not destroy it. 2. He was not given Egypt. He defeated Egyptian army before he failed in Tyre but that can not apply to the prophecy of Ezekiel 29 since Ezekiel 29 was prophecied after he failed in Tyre. This is the2nd error of bible

LLX is totally irrevelant since that is not what the original language says. PRO assumes that later text is altered since that is not consistent with what Matthew misquoted, this is just assumption of PRO which has no evidence. if the older text which LXX was translated from really said "virgin" instead of "young woman", then PRO must prove it. I ask him to prove the corruption he claims.

he assumes "if the oldest greek scripture has virgin instead of young woman which was translated from earlier Hebrew scripture, it is reasonable to think older Hebrew text said virgin", again it is just his assumption. It is not reasonable to think so because it is not a proof for what original earlier source said since LLX text too can be mistranslated. PRO may try to change the BoP here, I tell in advance: he claimed, he needs to show us evidence which shows the Tanakh we have now in Hebrew has been altered. btw, if he succeeds, he will create chance for others to claim "bible is is not reliable cause it has been altered and we do not know if it has been altered many times or entirely."
Peshitta? PEshitta is itself a translation into Syriac language which means nothing. What bible says in its original language (Hebrew in Isaiah 7:14) means something. if translations contradict what original language says, then logically translation is wrong. PRO tries to support his case with another mistranslations.

a woman at 80 can be still virgin but she is old, a woman can be young but nonvirgin, thus there is a difference between young woman (almah) and virgin woman (bethullah), thus what PRO says is wrong with saying "there is no contradiction". They may contradict, they may support each other.
what PRO says is like "the word child can be translated into another language as unmarried because a child can be unmarried and vice versa."
CON does not assume a young woman is not virgin, she may be virgin, she may be nonvirgin. INdeed PRO assumes just becuase young woman can be virgin, then that is virgin.
PRO says "even such a young woman would be virgin thus Matthew is perfectly justified" which does not justify what Matthew misquoted&mistranslated. It is like saying "children are unmarried, unmarried person may be a child, thus it is OK to translate "unmarried" as a child", what if the unmarried is 49 years old, does the analogy of PRo justifies that wrong translation?
previous rebuttal: Even if almahs were usually virgin (which is assumption of PRO), it means there were some who were "nonvirgin almahs." so, Isaiah 7:14 can't be claimed to have talked about virgin because: almah is "unspecified woman or a woman past puberty, regardless of sexual status" Almah may be a young woman: virgin or nonvirgin, married or unmarried, unmarried nonvirgin.
The only requirement for a young woman to be considered almah is she must have never had a child. So, Isaiah could have been talking about:
a virgin young woman; a nonvirgin unmarried young woman, married young woman, unmarried young woman. not about a virgin only, thus Matthew is in no way justified for his mistranslation and misquoatation, PRO just repeats aforedebunked arguement of his.

About prophecy: PRO claims that was a sign given to H-of-D, thus Mary can be a fullfillment of this 1. In hebrew, Isaiah says "Ha-Almah: THE YOUNG WOMAN" which means he was talking about the particular woman he can point to contrary to Matthew's mistranslation "A virgin". In hebrew HA is the definite article. This eliminates the possibility of a woman that will come 700 years later becuae since it is "the young woman", it is already a known woman Isaiah can point to. Moreover, in original scripture isaiah says "you shall name him Emanuel", the pronoun you is used in feminine, unlike english Hebrew has different feminine&masculine second person pronouns. with that said, it is clear the almah was in front of him when he told the sign. 2. IN isaiah 7:2, Isaiah relates that both, King AHAZ and the H-of-D were informed of the crisis created by the two warring kingdoms. the sign was not to only King Ahaz, it was both to H-of-D and King Ahaz but the woman&sign was the same, Ahaz and HoD both faced military threat as described in Isaiah 7:2. That was a sign given to both Ahaz and HoD for the militarty crisis they were under, not about the messiah. It is in no way related to the messiah yet to come and Jesus in no way fits into this "sign".

1. PRo makes strawman arguements 2. PRO tries to shift the BoP.
PRO says "Con assumes the things written in the gospels happened immediately" which is wrong. He claims "the order of the events were like he wrote in round 2" which is his assumption. I do not assume there was no room for something, he assumes between he said it is finished and bowed his head he said what Luke wrote which is his assumption, if he claims so he must prove jesus did so.I asked him to prove the events were in the way he wrote which he didn't. His assumption does not prove anything. The word and does not remove the possibility and it is not claimed so, the word and does not prove Jesus said what is written by Luke. PRo just makes strawman fallacy and tries to change the BoP.

PRO says god didn't "I did not make my name known", in Hebrew it says "and by my name Yahweh I was not known to them"[1] contrary to PRO's assertion "he said I did not make MYSELF known to them AS YAHWEH".
In genesis 15 God explicitly said to Abraham that he is Yahweh[2] PRO says "they did not know the significance of the character yahweh" which is offtopic. God told them their name in Genesis 15 and IN exodus 6 God says "but by my name Yahweh I was not known to them"
The contradiction is not whether they knew the significance, definition of the word Yahweh, the point is whether Yahweh told them that he is Yahweh. According to Gen 15, he was known to them by his name Yahweh but later he says I was not known.



I will surely have to allow my opponent the opportunity to do over this debate as he is pressed for time and isn't able to give his best and most detailed response to my arguments. I don't care if this debate is voted on or not, I just want to make a few replies to the last argument since Con pushed to make at least a few points with the little time he had.

I agree with Con that a single nation can be referred to with plural pronouns such as "they," but I don't agree that that one nation can be referred to as "NATIONS," which is why I drew his attention to Ezekiel 26:3 "I will bring MANY NATIONS against you, O Tyre." How could "MANY nations," be one nation? It was't an assumption on my part. These MANY NATIONS are mentioned before we even get to Nebuchanezzar, and he is only the 1st of these nations.

Listing what Alexander the Great did was not out of topic as his kingdom (Greece) was one of the nations prophesied in verse 3 to come against Trye. Yes, Tyre got no reward for Tyre because conquering the mainland was not considered enough. He didn't break the walls of New Tyre. But he did fulfill the prophecy but demolishing Old Tyre on the mainland.

As for Nebuchadnezzar being "given" Egypt as a reward, does the text tell us in what sense he will be given Egypt? He did defeat the Egyptian army.

I don't see how Con can assume that the oldest text containing Isaiah 7:14, the LXX, is corrupted. It's more logical that after many centuries of copying, its the later texts that have been changed. So Matthew's texts, as well as the LXX, containing the oldest record, must be more accurate even if they aren't in the original language. For example, if Carlos wrote a song in Spanish, and two days later James makes a copy in English. The orinal Spanish copy gets lost, but we still have the English copy, and three Spanish copies that were made ten years later, which one should we trust? Those in the original language are much older than the English copy. The English translator had access to a more reliable copy than the later Spanish copyist. So the oldest is likely to be the best.

Even though Jesus spoke Aramiac, the Gospels were written in Greek and date back much closer to the time of Jesus that later Hebrew manuscripts that were made by translating from the Greek back into Hebrew and not from any original Aramaic document. So in this case, the Greek manuscipts are more reliable as translations of what Jesus said, than later manuscripts even if they are in the original language.

Con misquotes Matthew to make it look like he's saying something different from Isaiah. Matthew doesn't say "A virgin," like some unspecified women, he says "he Parthenos" (THE virgin), a specific woman you can point out. Now, he assumes that the definite article can't be used of someone that will come 700 years later, but what would he therefore say to Daniel 9:25 which talks about the coming of THE (ha) Anointed One (Messiah/Christ) whom didn't come until 69 prophetic years. Now, this was no person in Isaiah's day that he could see and point out because he was yet to come, no matter how you count the 70 years. So Con is way off in the way he imagines Bible writers were limited in their use of the definite article.

I already answered the point on Ahaz.

Now, let's be realistic about Jesus' last words, because Con isn't being realistic. He's using a strict standard of evidence that if applied to any other historical work would cause all our history books to be trown out. Imagine you're in a court of law, and various witnesses are giving testimony about what they heard and saw on the day a certain man was murdered. Some will leave out things that are mentioned by others, but does that mean that they things they left out didn't happen? Whatever their reasons for excluding those things, good or bad, it doesn't prove that those things didn't happen. Yet, Con wants to assert that if Luke says Jesus said x, bowed his head and died, that he couldn't have said y before he died. Just because Luke doesn't mention the y, doen't mean John is wrong for picking it up. Nor does it mean he is contradicting Luke. It just means that these authors didn't record all of the events, but only what was important to their particular audience at the time.

I look forward to doing this debate again.
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Artur 3 months ago
OK, we will do it a bit later when I have time, of course if you too have a time.
Posted by Artur 3 months ago
I hope the time will let me post my arguement. if I do not succeed on time, I will just type: "too busy, did not have time to construct my arguements"
Posted by Artur 3 months ago
OK, I decied to keep it fairier. so, no arguement no rebuttal in this round. I just explained something and skipped, back to you.
Posted by daley 4 months ago
okay, that sounds fair
Posted by Artur 4 months ago
ok, I will not and was going to not add any more arguements. I will mention, ask readers not to penalise you for your forfeiture. I am going to write at the end of my time so that you will have about 6 days for your next round. btw, no bringing new arguements in the final round. 2. can I add more details to my rebuttal of the previous round?
Posted by daley 4 months ago
my apologies for forfeiting this round, I thought I could get home in time to finish my post, but I'm coordinating a wedding for tomorrow, and had a number of last minute details to take care of. We can continue, or we can start this debate over if you want. It's been a busy week. But it should quiet down after tomorrow
Posted by daley 4 months ago
Posted by Artur 4 months ago
then, ok. btw, if it is ok with you, what about starting other debates we negotiated? not right now, after 2-3 days I guess, then I will have a free days I hope.

at the time I challenged you on this debate, I was free for about 15 days, I guessed that will be enough for us for this debate, you accepted too late and now I am in trouble with time. I do not intend to forfeit or cancel or postpone this debate, I just explain it what for I am not starting other debates right now.
Posted by daley 4 months ago
Any contradiction of itself, science or history...
Posted by Artur 4 months ago
ok, waiting your reconciliations. actually, we were here for. not only for internal contradictions.
No votes have been placed for this debate.