The Instigator
MrJosh
Pro (for)
Tied
2 Points
The Contender
Strider97
Con (against)
Tied
2 Points

The Bible Contains Inaccuracies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,888 times Debate No: 35969
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)

 

MrJosh

Pro

I have set up this debate in response to an exchange between Strider97 and I on an opinion thread [1]. I will be PRO; Strider97 will be CON. I want to make it very clear that I own 100% of the burden of proof; CON need only refute my arguments. Below is the actual claim being questioned:

"...there is a great deal in the bible that is not factual..."

Now, that phrase is vague and not fitting for a formal debate. Therefore, the claim that I will be arguing for is:

The Christian Bible contains at least five inaccuracies.

I trust this is similar enough to the original language to satisfy CON. I chose five in order to keep the debate manageable for both parties, and also for anyone else on DDO that might be following along. Before I dive in, I just want to restate that CON need not make the case that the bible is inerrant, it is up to me to show that the bible contains at least five inaccuracies.

Round 1 will be for acceptance; I will make my case in Round 2. CON can then address my points as he sees fit. Since CON will have the final say at the end of Round 4, I reserve the right to add new examples as I deem it necessary. If CON is unable to refute at least five of my examples, I will win the debate. If four or fewer of my examples are left standing at the end, CON wins the debate. As a final bit of housekeeping, the bible I will be using is the King James Version (KJV).

[1] http://www.debate.org...

Strider97

Con

I accept the challenge. I would like to also state that I will not tolerate ad hominem attacks as they are a poor way of debating, nor shall I make such attacks on the PRO. I shall debate honorably, and I pray that the other side will treat me with the same respect I plan on giving.
Debate Round No. 1
MrJosh

Pro

I would like to thank CON for accepting this debate, and also for his commitment to a civil exchange. I hope this can be enjoyable and educational for both of us.

The Law of Non-Contradiction

I am going to begin with a brief description of the Law of Non-Contridiction, for reasons that will become apparant shortly. The Law of Non-Contradiction basically says that contradictory statements cannot both be true. If it is true that A=B, then it cannot also be true that A≠B [1].

Internal Inaccuracies

According to the Law of Non-Contradiction, if two different claims regarding the same event do not agree, one of them must be false. For instance, if the bible claims that Joseph's father was named Jacob, and then later claims that Joseph's father was named Heli, one or the other must be false. This is, in fact, the example with which I will begin.

1) Joseph's Father

Jacob is Joseph's father (Matthew 1:16).
Heli is Joseph's father (Luke 3:23).

2) Earthly Languages

Each nation had its own language (Genesis 10:5).
Everyone on the Earth spoke the same language at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1).

3) Moses' Father-in-Law

Jethro was Moses' Father-in-law (Exodus 3:1).
Hobab was Moses' Father-in-law (Numbers 10:29).

4) Punishment for Parent's Sins

Children are punished for the sins of their parents (Exodus 34:7).
Children are not punished for the sins of their parents (Ezekiel 18:20).

5) When did Baasha Die?

Baasha died in the 26th year of King Asa's reign (1 Kings 16:6-8).
Baasha was still alive in the 36th year of King Asa's reign (2 Choronicles 16:1).

6) Should Good Works be Seen?

Good works should be performed publicly (Matthew 5:16).
Good works should be performed in private (Matthew 6:1).

Language

I chose to word the above examples in language that is easy to access. However, to properly apply the Law of Non-Contradiction, the statements must be read as logical opposites. I will restate the same six examples in such format below:

1) Joseph's father is Jacob; Joseph's father is not Jacob.

2) Everyone spoke the same language; Everyone did not speak the same language.

3) Jethro was Moses' Father-in-Law; Jethro was not Moses' Father-in-law.

4) Children are punished for their parents' sins; Children are not punished for their parents' sins.

5) Baasha died in the 26th year of Asa's reign; Baasha did not die in the 26th year of Asa's reign.

6) Good works should be performed publicly; Good works should not be performed publicly.

Conclusion

I have shown six examples of internal contradictions in the bible, which, according to the Law of Non-Contradiction, cannot both be true. Of each pair, one must be an innacurate description of history. Therefore the bible contains at least five inaccuracies.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Strider97

Con

I will say that the arguments that you have brought before me have provided me with an excellent Bible study. Actually, some of these arguments I have seen before and will be happy to elaborate on and explain in order that the truth may be discovered.

1) In Mathew 1:16 and in Luke 3:23 it talks about the father in law of Moses. In the first reference it says that Jacob is Josephs father and in the second text it says that Heli is Josephs father. The explanation is this: Women are never recognized in genealogies, so Joseph, the legal son of Heli(son in law), naturally took the place of Josephs spouse, Mary. So, Jacob is Josephs biological father and Heli is Maries father, Josephs father in law. Since Joseph takes the place of Mary in the genealogy, he is recognized as the son of Heli.

2) The first verse is part of a genealogy. The second verse is the record of what actually happened. The way in which the opposition has interpreted it is not accurate. Its like trying to include the introduction of a book into the actual story.
The first reference that was made mention of states the descendants of Noah after the tower of Babel. So, it was correct in that they where divided according to there language. In Genesis 11:1 it says that the whole earth was of one language.(and was split at the tower of Babel.) The genealogy is being used as an introduction(meant to give an overview of the book) of who they will be talking about and what will happen IN THE FUTURE. Chapter 11 is like the body of a essay; the course material, story, narrative, etc. The introduction(genealogy) is telling us of things which will occur(the scrambling of languages)and how the nation has split. So to have said that the languages were divided is a description of what has already happened in chapter 11. Perhaps its clearer if you read it in context to the chapter, or better yet, the book of Genesis.

3) Jethro is the actual father in law of Moses. In the second translation it is actually referring to the brother in law of Moses. The Hebrew translates the word as, "family in law" and because the passage was continually using father in law instead of brother in law, it was translated as father. A simple misinterpretation which has no affect on the actual meaning of the Bible, theology or apologetics.

4) The first reference talks about how the sins of the father will pass to the son, IF NEITHER, son or father, REPENT. However, the second verse clarifies the first by saying that if the son repents he shall not carry the burden of his fathers sins or the sins of generations past. Another verse read out of context.

5) The dates from these two passages may seem messed up. You must know that Israel split and the dating systems of the two new nations where made different. Now there was Israel and Judah(split around 930 B.C) and both used different dating methods. So the books where written to the correct times according to their nations. I actually did a study on these verses and the two texts seem off, but aren't. A half year of the first country was the first year of the second. If you do the math the dates add up and in the end it is totally logical.

6) In the first verse Jesus is talking about uprightness and good works in the sight of others. In the second verse Jesus is warning us, that we may not do that which is good before others just to look good, but instead to do them only unto the Lord for his pleasure and glory. In other words the goal is not to go out and do things to look good, but to go and do good because God has commanded so. Again just some verses which have been read out of context and need some clarifying.

I have studied this material for quite a while and its easy to see how everything knits together. People tend to try and make the Bible look bad by attacking the surface material.(or Bible language) However, if you search deep in the Word then you will find that everything is completely logical and that when it all falls into place it is easy to see the wonderful tapestry, woven by a wonderful creator.
Debate Round No. 2
MrJosh

Pro

I would like to thank CON for his addition to the second round of our debate; I’m glad you have enjoyed it so far.

First of all, I would like to point out that I have been addressing parts of the bible that are in conflict, which result in at least one inaccuracy per conflict. CON has not challenged any of my points on what the bible actually says, instead, he has generally argued that the words on the pages actually mean something different.

Arguments

1) Joseph’s Father

I showed that the different genealogies in Matthew and Luke each attribute a different father to Joseph; CON did not dispute this. What CON did was to assert that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary’s genealogy. There are numerous problems with this claim, other than its lack of scriptural support; however, I will only address one at this time:

Jews generally trace their ‘Jewishness’ through their mother; all other matters such as the affiliation with a particular tribe, and royal or priestly status are patrilinear [1]. So, Jesus could not have a royal birthright through Mary, because royal status is passed through the father, and he can’t have royal status through Joseph, because Joseph’s lineage was cursed in the time of Jechonias (Jeremiah 22:24-30) [a]. So, if we are going to argue that the genealogy in Luke is Mary’s, then we run into another inconsistency because Jesus cannot inherit David’s throne and therefore is not fulfilling the prophesy in the 9th chapter of Isaiah [3]. Either way, this is an inconsistency.

[a] Jechonias is the same person as Coniah [2]

2) Earthly Languages

Again, I have shown how the words in the bible show an inaccuracy; CON has chosen to argue for a particular interpretation. However, instead of trying to argue something that may boil down to an opinion, I will take a different path with this argument.

According to Genesis 11:1-9 (The Tower of Babel story), everyone in the world spoke the same language. Now, the story of the Tower of Babel is generally dated to about 2100-2400 BCE [4][5]. However, it is known that humans have been living in the Americas since before that time [6]. This begs the question as to how the events affected the language spoken in the Americas, or any of the other areas that had been settled at that time such as Australia [7]. In fact, the story flies in the face of what modern linguists know regarding the origin and evolution of languages [8]. The Tower of Babel story is not historically accurate.

3) Moses’ Father-in-Law

Here, CON’s main argument is with a translation, which is something that confuses me since I agreed to use the King James Version of the bible because CON said it was a “direct translation” [b]. Now, for some reason, CON suddenly has a problem with the translation. I would like to point out that nearly every translation of the bible that I am aware of translates this passage as “father-in-law.” Here are a few other examples:

American Standard Version http://www.biblegateway.com...

Complete Jewish Bible http://www.biblegateway.com...

English Standard Version http://www.biblegateway.com...

Orthodox Jewish Bible http://www.biblegateway.com...

Geneva Bible http://www.biblegateway.com...

Young’s Literal Translation http://www.biblegateway.com...

New World Translation http://www.jw.org...

Here is a link to a site that compares Hebrew versions of the Pentateuch; every version uses “father-in-law.” https://sites.google.com...

I have shown that what the bible CON suggested be used in this debate is internally inconsistent in this instance, and therefore, inaccurate. CON’s claim that the usage of the word “father-in-law” in the passage from the book of Numbers just doesn’t hold up. My point stands.

[b] See the Comments section of this debate.

4) Punishment for Parent’s Sins

Here, the real concern is over the passage in Exodus 34:7, which CON accuses me of taking out of context. However, the context is pretty clear. God is talking to Moses; basically telling Moses how great he (God) is. In this verse, God is saying how merciful he is, and then he finishes the sentence about his mercy by saying “and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.” A more accessible translation says it this way, “Yet he (God) does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” [9]. CON’s claim about repentance isn’t supported by scripture. My point stands.

5) When Did Baasha Die?

CON’s concern regarding the different dating systems is irrelevant. The texts I cited didn’t use dates; they used a universally recognizable reference point, the reign of a local ruler. Example:

Bill Clinton was sworn in as President of the United States in 1993 according the Gregorian calendar or 5753 by the Jewish calendar [10]. If we say that something happened in the year 1993, there could be confusion as we have two different dating systems, but if we say that it happened in the year Bill Clinton became president, there is no confusion.

The latter is how the verses in question are written; CON’s argument here simply doesn’t make sense. The 26th year of Asa’s reign is the 26th year of Asa’s reign regardless of how different nations count the years. My point stands.

6) Should Good Works be Seen?

CON’s argument here is one of interpretation; I am talking about what the words say. The verse in the 5th chapter of Matthew says to do good works publicly; in fact it says that you should do things in such a way as to be seen [11], while the verse in the 6th chapter of Matthew says to do it in secret. CON suggests that the passage in chapter 6 simply says that we shouldn’t be doing things to look good. However, if we read on, verse 3 says to “let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth,” and verse 4 “That thine alms may be in secret” [12]. We are not talking about simple motivation; we are clearly instructed to keep our good works secret. If CON wants to interpret the verse in a particular way as he practices his faith, that is his prerogative, however, I am concerned with what the verses actually say. My point stands.

Conclusion

I have provided six examples of inaccuracies in the bible. CON generally argued that the words on the pages in the bible actually mean something different from what they generally mean. In one case, I showed that if CON’s objection is correct, it will result in a different inaccuracy. In another that may be more a matter of opinion, I offered another reason for why this portion of the bible is inaccurate. My other four points still stand because I have shown why CON’s objections are either irrelevant or just plain wrong. I reaffirm my original position that The Christian Bible contains at least five inaccuracies.

[1] http://www.jewfaq.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[4] http://www.trinity-ottumwa.com...
[5] http://www.bible.ca...
[6] http://imnh.isu.edu...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.newscientist.com...
[9] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[10] http://stevemorse.org...
[11] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[12] http://www.biblegateway.com...

Strider97

Con

Firstly, I would like to thank the pro for responding promptly. Also, I would beg the forgiveness of the PRO, as I have responded late in this round.(I"ve been very busy) Secondly, truth regardless of how it translates into language is truth none the less. If we are going to continue we must agree on this point.
1)
Mathew 1, "This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 4 Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah"s wife, 7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9 Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. 12 After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Elihud, 15 Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah."
I don"t know about you, but it sure seems like Jesus is the direct heir to the throne.
My opponent made an argument however, regarding a verse in Jeremiah, that the line of Joseph was cursed.
Jeremiah 22:30 "Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah."
(We see in the genealogy above that Jeconiah actually had a son.) Write this man down childless, means that we are to consider him childless even though he had a son as seen in the genealogy. Here the Davidic line was broken. When Jesus came and was born of Mary, He restarted the line, the line of Nathan, which was in direct correspondence to the line of David. Simple explanation for a simple misinterpretation.

2)
Boiling things down to the particulars is often required especially when analyzing the nitty gritty of scripture.
You touched on a topic which takes away from the consistency argument and moved it towards evolution and creationism topics. It is within my opinion that the linguistic system, which you have made claim of(without evidential backing), is inaccurate. I am sure you believe my dating systems are inaccurate as well. You tried move the topic to different grounds, instead of refuting m argument as it still stands. I would happy to debate you later on whose system of language background is valid. For now though, let"s stick to things which we know and which are topical.
I personally do not see how the tower of Babel conflicts with people in America and their languages, especially if you believe in Pangaea. You made inference through material that I do not trust and because we have two different opinions on the situation I feel we cannot go any further.
We are checking the consistency of the Bible and not the Consistency of the Bible against any kind of Evolutionary process.
To go back to the actual argument, in order that I may clarify, the first verse is a genealogy and the second is the actual account of how it happened. Again, you are reading things out of context. My argument stands.

3)
I would like to submit that the last too arguments it seems that you have tried to move the subject left or right. In this way you brought up my particularity with the translation. I am more familiar with the KJV, my study Bible, which contains some of resources and many notes, is in KJV, and I find that the KJV tends to be more accurate. If I use the NIV or any other version it is only because I have checked it against the KJV and Hebrew text. We can debate whether or not KJV is more accurate than NIV later.
My opponent attempted to show that the Bible was inconsistent with the Moses argument and attempted to translate Father-in-law by his own methods. However, it is invalid because they only give one translation in PROs example when the word actually has several translations. I translated the same word you used in your resource and found that it has many meanings. Check this link> http://translation.babylon.com...
Your argument has failed.

4)
To be honest I don"t know where you went with this one. So, I shall clarify once more.

Exodus 34:6-7
"6 And the lord passed before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving the iniquity and transgressions and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children"s, unto the third and fourth generation."
What is this is saying? It says that if neither the father, nor son does not repent, then the burden of sin carries on.
Ezekiel 18: 20
"The soul that sineth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
So, if the son repents of his sins then the transgressions of his father shall cease, then and there. However, if the son fails to repent then the sin carries on throughout the generations. I think this should clarify. I don"t see how this form of repentance is against scripture as you failed to provide evidence for. I am sure that this coincides with Old Testament scripture as I have studied this material for almost 2 decades.
If you are referring to New Testament salvation, then the explanation is this: Through Jesus we are cleansed of our sins. Hope this clarifies.

5)
Just because you believe something or have an opinion that something is irrelevant does not make it so. I don"t think your understanding what I"m saying. The 26th year is according to one nation. She was still alive in the 36th year of Asa"s reign. The first date was according to one nations system and the other date was according to another dating system. If Isreal split at about 930 BC then the 36th year is around the same time as the 26th through some mathematics its easy to see how the two dates correspond with one another.
I will attempt to mimic your argument with your example. This is basically what you"ve done with your inference.
Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993.
Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 5753.
It would be easy to say that there is an inconsistency between the two. However, the dates are the same; they merely are used in different dating systems and therefore seem dissimilar. Likewise, the dates regarding Baasha are the same because of the methods by which the two nations date things. Your own example proves my point. My counter argument stands.

6)
I will attempt to mimic the oppositions argument with this syllogism.
All murder is bad.
All murder is good.
This is the kind or type of contradiction the PRO is trying to depict, but if he had not left the rest of the two verses out it actually makes sense.
All murder, which is derived from hate, racism, and from any evil intent is bad.
All murder, which is derived from self defense is good.
There is no contradiction within these argument. However, through the carful wording of the PRO he has given the illusion of contradiction.

Good works should be seen.
Good works should not be seen.

This is a contradiction, or so it seems"

My opponent fails to realize that words are nothing without their meanings. Thus, one word in a sentence can make a difference.
a)Matthew 5:16 (KJV) "16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

b)Matthew 6:1 KJV "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven."
So, the actual logical premises are:
Good works should be seen for the glory of God
Good works should not be seen for the glory of man.

This translates to"

Good works should be seen for the glory of God.
Good works should not be seen for the not glory of God.

The second premise contains a double negative which makes it a positive.(not be seen/not glory of God.) Therefore, we do easy math"
2nd premise = Good works should be seen for the glory of God.
Both premises are equal and consistent.
I find no fault in these verses. The only contradiction is the one you make in your imagination. All in all, the truth stands valid.

I will say it is one thing to watch someone twist the Word from the sidelines, but it is quite another thing to be right on the battle line and watching the opposition bend the Bible before my very eyes. People have forgotten the meaning of truth and validity. There inference is fallible. I will conclude with the following verse.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."
Debate Round No. 3
MrJosh

Pro

I thank CON for his third round arguments. Before getting to the arguments proper, I would like to thank CON for accepting this debate; I have thoroughly enjoyed it, and I hope CON has as well.

The Six Main Arguments

1) Joseph’s Father

Regarding CON’s point that Jechonias was not childless: the scripture says, “Write ye this man childless,” as in he should be considered childless. It goes on to say, “…no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” [1]. This scripture clearly shows that no one from the line of Jechonias will inherit David’s throne [2][3][4][5].

Another common way Christians get around this difficulty is by claiming that since Jesus is not Joseph's biological child, the curse does not transfer to him, but since he is Joseph's adopted son, he can inherit the birthright. However, unless CON wants to bear the burden to demonstrate the historicity of the virgin birth, we can disregard that argument. Therefore, Jesus cannot fulfill the prophesy of Jeremiah, so if the genealogy in Luke is Mary’s, the bible is inaccurate in it’s prophesy. If it is Joseph’s genealogy, the bible is inaccurate by having two conflicting genealogies. My point stands.

2) Earthly Languages

Here, instead of relying on a possible inaccuracy that may boil down to opinion, I showed how the story of the Tower of Babel is historically inaccurate. Instead of arguing against that point, CON has doubled down on his different opinion regarding my arguments in Round 2. However, as clearly stated in Round 1, “I reserve the right to add new examples as I deem it necessary.” CON has not addressed my argument about the historical inaccuracy of the Tower of Babel story. My point stands.

3) Moses’ Father-In-Law

Here, I have argued that the bible is inaccurate in that it gives two different fathers-in-law for Moses. CON argues that one of them is a mistranslation. I will address translations in the final section of this round. Here, I just want to reiterated that CON requested we use the King James Version for this debate because it is a “direct translation” [6]. Therefore, in my opinion, any translation inaccuracies are valid inaccuracies. My point stands.

4) Punishment for Parent’s Sins

Here, I have shown that the bible is inaccurate by claiming that children will be held responsible for their parents’ sins, and in another point saying that children will not be held responsible. CON simply ignores the contradiction and argues for a particular interpretation of the bible overall. He never really addresses the point I made in Round 3 that Exodus 34:7 clearly states that children will be held responsible for their parent’s sins. This scripture is inaccurate according to the text in Ezekiel. One does not complement or explain the other; they are saying two different things. Therefore, one or the other must be inaccurate. My point stands.

5) When Did Baasha Die?

I don’t think CON understood my point. We aren’t talking about dates; we are talking about a fixed point in time. If Asa started his rule in year 1 of one dating system and year 101 in another, an event that took place in the 26th year of his rule took place in year 26 or year 126 respectively. However, if a man died in year 10 (year 110), it is the 10th year of Asa’s reign, no matter how you date it. My point stands.

6)Good Works

It seems that CON is trying to conflate two different things: what we are told to do, and why we are told to do it. For this debate, I am not concerned with why we are given a particular instruction; I am concerned with the instruction itself. As I explained in the previous round, Matthew 5 clearly says to perform good works publicly [7], while Matthew 6 is very clear that we should perform them in secret [8]. My point stands.

A New Argument

7)David’s Chief

He killed 800 (2 Samuel 23:8)
He killed 300 (1 Chronicles 11:11)

A few other translations:

American Standard Version
2 Samuel 23:8http://tinyurl.com...
1 Chronicles 11:11http://tinyurl.com...

Complete Jewish Bible
2 Samuel 23:8http://tinyurl.com...
1 Chronicles 11:11http://tinyurl.com...

English Standard Version
2 Samuel 23:8http://tinyurl.com...
1 Chronicles 11:11http://tinyurl.com...

Geneva Bible
2 Samuel 23:8http://tinyurl.com...
1 Chronicles http://tinyurl.com...

Young’s Literal Translation
2 Samuel 23:8http://tinyurl.com...
1 Chronicles 11:11http://tinyurl.com...

New World Translation
2 Samuel 23:8http://tinyurl.com...
1 Chronicles 11:11http://tinyurl.com...

These accounts are talking about David’s rise to power. The passage in 2 Samuel claims David’s Chief Captain killed 800 men at one time, while the analogous passage in 1 Chronicles puts the number at 300. Now, another obvious problem with the passages is that the man has a different name in each passage. The discrepancy is usually blamed on scribal error [9][10][11], another problem for the bible. Names aside, it is clear that the different passages record a different kill total for David’s Chief Captain; at least one of the figures must be inaccurate.

Errors and Concluding Thoughts

It seems almost any discussion of the inerrancy (or lack thereof) of the bible eventually boils down to a discussion of errors in copying and translating. If we had an original copy of the bible sitting in a museum vault somewhere, we could reference it for any copy or translation errors, and determine the real meaning. However, this is not the case.

Every manuscript we have for the bible is a copy, and these were generally copies made more than a millennium after the original was written [12]. Since any of these non-original manuscripts can contain copy errors, or even translation errors, we cannot rely on them to show us 100% of what was written in the original texts. Another option is to seek the opinions of those who study the bible, but biblical experts often disagree on translations [13][14] and meanings [15][16]. In fact, these disagreements have often been the reason for splits in the church [17], splits that have resulted in tens of thousands of denominations within Christianity [18]. With that in mind, I will make my final case.

I began with the claim that the bible contains at least five inaccuracies, a claim for which I bear the burden to demonstrate. I have given seven examples of inaccuracies in the version of the bible that CON suggested we use. While I feel I have made my case clearly, some of my arguments may be a matter of interpretation, especially those regarding translation. In these cases, I have shown what the bible actually says, and I have backed up that particular point with other sources.

Since we have no official bible to reference for the real meaning, much is a matter of opinion. Since I have shown that these verses are in error in CON’s preferred version of the bible (in some cases other versions as well), CON must bear some burden to show why we must interpret these verses differently. For instance, regarding argument 3, CON has shown that the wordcanbe translated as brother-in-law, but he has not demonstratedwhyit should be translated in such a way. Keeping in mind that it would be circular reasoning [19], a logical fallacy, to use the reason that it would cause a discrepancy, I reaffirm my original claim for which I feel I have met my burden;The Christian Bible contains at least five inaccuracies.

[1]http://tinyurl.com...
[2]http://tinyurl.com...
[3]http://tinyurl.com...
[4]http://tinyurl.com...
[5]http://tinyurl.com...
[6] See Comments
[7]http://tinyurl.com...
[8]http://tinyurl.com...
[9]http://tinyurl.com...
[10]http://tinyurl.com...
[11]http://tinyurl.com...
[12]http://tinyurl.com...
[13]http://tinyurl.com...
[14]http://tinyurl.com...
[15]http://tinyurl.com...
[16]http://tinyurl.com...
[17]http://tinyurl.com...
[18]http://tinyurl.com...
[19]http://tinyurl.com...

Strider97

Con

I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate round, just as much as I hope the PRO has. I would like to thank the PRO for his decency in this debate round as well as for inviting me. So far in this debate the only thing I have discovered is that the KJV is not translated as well as I had presupposed. Regardless, the bible itself, in its original language, is totally accurate. I believe that the KJV does a good job in translating it into the English language.

1) Jesus is the son of God and therefore doesn't have to be born in the line of man to be become a king. When it says that Jesus will inherit the kingdom, he is referring to heavenly kingdom, which he is direct line for. John 18:36, "Jesus replied, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would fight to prevent me being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But now my kingdom is not from here." Your whole argument is invalid, because you have stated it out of context to the whole of scripture. My argument stands.

2) You are trying to bring up an "new argument," so I guess that means I have proved the your last argument as invalid. However, this argument is off topic. We are checking the consistency of the Bible against itself. Not whether or not Biblical records are accurate with others. I believe that your records are inaccurate, just as you believe mine are. I would be happy to entertain you to a specific debate on whose dating system is accurate, but for now my argument stands.

3) The Hebrew translation for the word father-in-law has more than one meaning. The Hebrew word translates as such, http://translation.babylon.com...... Its about as ambiguous as the word good. The meaning could be pragmatic or ethical.(it looks good/ it is good to give to the poor.) Just because something does not make sense in the English language doesn't mean that it, in its actual translation, is inaccurate. If your are going to read the Bible you must pay attention to detail and always check the Hebrew meanings. My argument remains.

4) If you excuse the particulars, the fall will be fatal. Again you are reading out of context. I think I demonstrated it best with my last example.

The son will not bear the iniquity of the father.
The son will bear the iniquity of the father.

When in actuality;

The son will not bear the iniquity of the father, if he repents.("righteousness, will be upon the righteous")
The son will bear the iniquity of the father, if he does not repent.

Reading and interpreting things out of context is a nasty business. If you are going to make arguments against the Bibles consistency then you should make sure you know what the verse says.

The way in which you are reading it is like reading just the chapter titles of a book. You actually don't know how the stories turning out and don't understand the plot or characters. Likewise you don't understand the particulars of what I am referring to, not because you cant see them, but that you are unwilling to look. My argument stands.

5) You said we are measuring a fixed point in time. How do we measure a fixed point in time? Dates man! Dates! I still don't think you understand what I am getting at. It is to my perception that you have thrown a third analysis of time into the mix.(current dating methods.) You need to forget the current dating methods because its just confusing, and instead extrapolate the two dating systems I made reference to. If you do that you will see that at the time of the split and according to the two dating systems, both dates are mathematically consistent. My counter argument stands.

6) If your going to be ignorant and read everything out of context then that is up to you. You said that we should analyze the Bible for what it actually says. That is what I'm doing. You are only analyzing the Bible for what SOME of it says. What you say and do is a contradiction in and of itself. Let me illustrate again.

Good works should be seen.
Good works shouldn't be seen.

This is how you have interpreted SOME of the truth.
When in actuality.

Good works should be seen for the glory of God.
Good work should not be seen for the glory of man.

Translates logically to,

Good works should be seen for the glory of God.
Good works should not be seen for the not glory of God.

Delete the two negatives and what do you get? These two statements are totally equal. If you still don't get it then review the inference I made in my last argument. Anyone can read things out of context, but it takes a keen eye, and a willing heart to discover the truth and read the Bible as it was meant to be read.(in context) My point stands.

7) In Samuel it says, "...Some of the mighty men that David had:(where he is from) ... ADINO...: who slew 800 at one time."
In Chronicles it says, "... Some of the mighty men which David had:(again where he is from)... JOSHOBEAM...: who slew 300 at one time." These are two different men. In fact David had many chiefs, all at different times. Many died in battle and so runner up would replace him. There is no problem with the amount that he killed(because they were two different men) and there is no problem with who the chiefs are, so, therefore the bible remains accurate.

Conclusion

I think its quite funny that the Iliad has under ten original manuscripts and is never tested for consistency. Yet the Bible has 24,000 original manuscripts all of which correspond exactly, and everyone goes nuts. The reason there are so many is because the Jewish priests would copy the original accounts of Moses, Abraham, etc. to a point. If they made one little mark that was off by any means they would do away with the scroll. They took there work very seriously. I know, even the church cant agree on what is the truth, but I know and understand that the Bible is truth both literally and metaphorically, and I therefore do not conform to any denomination, but instead I cling to the holy word of God as it is truth in the midst of a world full of lies.

The PRO says that some of his argument are invalid do to interpretation. Regardless he has continually read them out of context. He has tried to destroy the "literalness" of the Bible. He also, stated that he has shown what the Bible exactly says. If he had, then he wouldn't have left out the other half of the verses which put things into context and made light of the truth. He is not here to discover the truth, but rather is present to exploit it in a manner that disproves the Bible. A scientist looks at the facts, but a good one looks at all of the evidence.

I personally don't read Hebrew, but that's why I consulted someone who can. I studied Latin for 5 years, and I will tell you that one word can have several meanings, which is why there are so many translations. However, if we are to analyze the truth, we must be open minded and look at all of the possible meanings, that we might better understand Gods word for what He intended. I don't know why they translated father-in-law as such, but it is what it is.

The day has come where man is exchanging truth for lies that feed his own passions and preserve his lifestyle. As I have proven, the Bible is totally consistent, regardless of whether a person takes it literally or not. The Bible is Gods picture of reality. Truth is the reality of God, because it is not distorted by lies. Gods reality is totally, absolutely, positively, consistent. If we are to go about life we must always seek the truth.

I have proven my opponent wrong time and time again. The day in which we find ourselves is full of lies. It is our job to search out Gods reality. The way is clear and the road is narrow. It is up to us to walk down it. I have proven and demonstrated in this debate that the Bible is absolutely/completely consistent.

"I believe in Christianity as I believe in the sun rise; not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -C.S Lewis.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
Strider, I too had a good time during this debate. Good luck in the voting, and I'll see you around DDO!
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I suggest next time focusing on one or two. As things were, it was hard to keep track of them after awhile (which is why I shall not be voting; at least not yet).
Posted by Strider97 3 years ago
Strider97
Mr. Josh, it was a pleasure debating you. I think that out of all the atheists I have met or talked with that you are the most decent and probably the most honorable out of all of them. I appreciate your good attitude and demeanor during this debate and am glad I had the chance to debate you. Again I am much obliged and give you much luck. :)
Posted by Strider97 3 years ago
Strider97
Hey, don't worry about it. Same thing happened to me too :)
Posted by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
I feel I should apologise. Since I ran out of space, I had to change some of my wording, so the language might be a little rough. However, I feel my points are clear enough. Also, I had to shorten all of my URLs, as I couldn't justify using precious character on lengthy web addresses. In case there are problems with any of my links, here are my sources before I shortened the URLs:

[1] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] http://www.sullivan-county.com...
[3] http://yahisking.org...
[4] http://www.missionislam.com...
[5] See the Comments section of this debate
[6] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[7] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[8] http://www.enduringword.com...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] http://www.studylight.org...
[11] http://carm.org...
[12] http://www.wels.net...
[13] http://www.missionfrontiers.org...
[14] http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk...
[15] http://www.biblestudycorner.com...
[16] http://3lotus.com...
[17] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[18] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Posted by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
I thought I had my argument ready, but for the first time I ran into the 8000 character limit. I'll be back after editing.

:)
Posted by Strider97 3 years ago
Strider97
HAHA! Sorry to get back to you so late. I've been busy and my computer has been having problems. It totally messed up the formatting for that half of the round. LOL Bear with me.

I've never heard of a verse that says insect has four legs.
Please elaborate :)
Posted by Nataliella 3 years ago
Nataliella
What about the innacuracy in the Bible that says that insects have 4 legs?
Posted by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one having problems with duplicating comments. :)
Posted by Strider97 3 years ago
Strider97
Hey don't worry take your time. Its all good :)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by STMAknight92 3 years ago
STMAknight92
MrJoshStrider97Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: just agreed with con more than pro
Vote Placed by PatriotPerson 3 years ago
PatriotPerson
MrJoshStrider97Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I wasn't sure who my agreements were with, but conduct to Con for his organization, and he gets spelling and grammar. Arguments and Sources are tied because they were both fine.