The Instigator
MilitantAtheist
Pro (for)
Losing
8 Points
The Contender
SkepticsAskHere
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

The Bible contains contradictions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
SkepticsAskHere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,077 times Debate No: 16871
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (44)
Votes (6)

 

MilitantAtheist

Pro

Hello DDO, I am a new member and I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
In this debate, I will attempt to show that the Bible is full of contradictions.

Structure

Round 1: Acceptance only, no arguments
Round 2: Pro's opening arguments, con's first rebuttal
Round 3: Pro's first rebuttal, con's second rebuttal
Round 4: Pro's second rebuttal, con's third rebuttal
Round 5: Closing arguments, pro's and con's last rebuttals.

In addition, we must wait till round 5 to state why vote for you.

Objective

Pro will show that there are contradictions in the Bible and con will attempt to reconcile the contradiction.

Rules

We must show good conduct and good character through the entire debate. My opponent must be a Bible-believing Christian that believes that there are no contradictions in the Bible.

Good luck and let's get started.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

Since the first round is acceptance, this is me doing so. I will say some things before I begin.

I will ask my opponent to limit his contradictions to just a few of his favorites or the contradictions that uphold his side in the greatest way. I would say have 4 contradictions as an absolute maximum, and I would prefer less than that personally. Also, it will be out of conduct to introduce new arguments after the first constructive is over. So once again do not introduce new contradictions because I will not be required to debate them.


It is of course my opponent's burden of proof to show that their are contradictions in the Bible and in order for them to be contradictions they must be statements that exclude all other possibilities. For example:

Me: I have an apple.
Stranger: He has exactly two apples.

This is not a contradiction because the first statement does not exclude the possibility that there could be two apples.

We are basically argueing over the second law of logic which is the law of non-contradictory.

The law of non-contradiction tells us that A cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same sense. In other words, something (a statement) cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. We use the law of non-contradiction constantly in discussions and debates because we are naturally able to recognize when someone is contradicting himself. If I were to tell you that yesterday I went shopping and then later I told you that yesterday I did not go shopping, you would be correct in saying there was a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another and yet both are claimed to be true. Since we know that both cannot be true, we see a contradiction. From this principle, we can conclude that truth is not self-contradictory. This is a very important concept. Let me repeat it. Truth is not self-contradictory.

https://school.carm.org...

If the Bible violates this law then I will lose this debate, however if I am able to show that it is not contradictory then I should win this debate.

This is the foundation set for the contradictions and I wish good luck to my opponent, who is called MilitantAtheist among other names that he has given himself that people might recognize him as.
Debate Round No. 1
MilitantAtheist

Pro

Hello, Taylor, I thank you so much for accepting this debate. I will honour your request and only post my favourite contradictions. Note that as a Canadian I may have slightly different spelling.

In addition, I will agree to what you have stated and will not post any new contradictions as time goes on. I will not require you to answer the new contradictions.


I will be using the King James Version (KJV) for several reasons.
  1. It is considered most accurate
  2. It is the most popular version
  3. No copyright-I do not have to worry about being sued
  4. Most of the contradictions in the KJV are also in other versions.

Contradiction 1: How should you treat your parents?

A. You should honour them

"Honour thy father and thy mother." Exodus 20:12

B. Hate your parents

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26

We need to understand the word hate according to the Strong's exhausted concordance dictionary, the word hate means the following

Hate: μισέω

1) to hate, pursue with hatred, detest

2) to be hated, detested

http://www.blueletterbible.org...

It is also important to note that it is Jesus speaking and the same word is used in Mark 13:13 where it says "And ye shall be hated (detested) of all men for my name's sake: but he that endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."

To love A much more than B does not mean you have to hate B

Another contradiction arises in the same verse. 1 John 3:15 states the following, "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." And the SAME WORD that means to hate, pursue with hatred is used there.

There is obviously a problem.

In efforts to comply with my opponent, I am keeping this to only the two that I see in those verses.

For more contradictions, please visit http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

I am not requiring my opponent to answer the entire SAB.

SkepticsAskHere

Con

I thank my opponent for such an interesting debate.

In addition, I will agree to what you have stated and will not post any new contradictions as time goes on. I will not require you to answer the new contradictions.

My opponent offers only one “contradiction”, I said that he could offer up to four so I will allow him in round three to add up to two more contradictions if he would like, due to the fact that he seems to take the verse in question out of context.


I will be using the King James Version (KJV) for several reasons.

  1. It is considered most accurate
  2. It is the most popular version
  3. No copyright-I do not have to worry about being sued
  4. Most of the contradictions in the KJV are also in other versions.

I disagree on all levels for the KJV. It was translated 400 years ago by only 50 or so scholars. Today, we have translations for a modern dialect, with versions that use up to 200 scholars to determine the accuracy, and there are many more “contradictions” in the KJV due to improper translation. My opponent may use KJV, however I would not recommend it if he legitimately wants to understand what the Bible is trying to say. He may of course use KJV, I simply don't recommend it and will be using different translations.

Contradiction 1: How should you treat your parents?

Are we supposed to hate or not?

Luke 14:26 and 1 John 3:15

  1. You must hate - (Luke 14:26) - "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."
  2. You must not hate - (1 John 3:15) - "Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."

In Luke 14:26, Jesus is drawing a comparison of importance by exaggerating a relationship. Jesus is merely making his point so that people will understand how highly one should love Jesus. In the Bible, the greatest commandments are to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and then to love your neighbor as yourself. So Jesus is by no means telling people to hate anyone. He is saying that your love for me should be so great in comparison for your love for your family, that it is on the scale seems as though it is hate compared to Christ. He is saying that by comparison to Him, you must love Him more than all else.

In 1 John 3:15, John is writing to the church about abiding in the love of Christ. In fact, in 1 John, the word "abide" occurs 16 times in the NASB and the apostle continually refers to abiding in Christ (1 John 2:4,24,28;3:6,24, etc.).

For Christians, this means that we must have a love for Christ that far exceeds the love we have for anyone else. He should reign supreme in our hearts.

Sources:

http://carm.org...

For these reasons I urge a vote for Con and I look forward to see how my opponent responds in his next round, and the new contradictions that he either may or may not introduce.

Debate Round No. 2
MilitantAtheist

Pro

Hello again and I thank my opponent for such a speedy response! As my opponent stated that I may bring up more contradictions, I shall do that if I feel that is necessary.

I disagree on all levels for the KJV. ... however I would not recommend it if he legitimately wants to understand what the Bible is trying to say. He may of course use KJV, I simply don't recommend it and will be using different translations.


I respect my opponent's decision and will allow him to use a different translation.

In Luke 14:26, Jesus is drawing a comparison of importance by exaggerating a relationship. Jesus is merely making his point so that people will understand how highly one should love Jesus. In the Bible, the greatest commandments are to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and then to love your neighbor as yourself. So Jesus is by no means telling people to hate anyone. He is saying that your love for me should be so great in comparison for your love for your family, that it is on the scale seems as though it is hate compared to Christ. He is saying that by comparison to Him, you must love Him more than all else.

In 1 John 3:15, John is writing to the church about abiding in the love of Christ. In fact, in 1 John, the word "abide" occurs 16 times in the NASB and the apostle continually refers to abiding in Christ (1 John 2:4,24,28;3:6,24, etc.).

For Christians, this means that we must have a love for Christ that far exceeds the love we have for anyone else. He should reign supreme in our hearts.

In a nutshell, my opponent is arguing that Jesus is drawing a comparison of importance, in other words, it is a hyperbole. However, as I pointed out, just because you love A more than B does not mean you have to hate B.

I also have pointed out that the Greek word is the same exact thing in both context. 1 John is indeed stating that the church should abide in the love of Christ. However, we also see that he stated that "If you hate your brother, you have murdered him in your own heart" (paraphrased.)

We see that there is a discripincy here. The Greek language was very discriptive. Furthermore, if that is to be taken as a hyperbole (exadduration) then what else is to be taken as a hyperbole?

New Contradictions

My opponent has allowed me to give more contradictions than what I listed. I shall take advantage of my opponent's seemingly kind (but possibly fatal) offer.


New Contradiction 1: Shall we be punnished for another's sin?

A. No


The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deuteronomy 14:26

In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity. Jeremiah 13:29-30

B. Yes

I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. Duteronomy 5:9

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. Duteronomy 32:2

I shall point out that the word bastard in the Duteronomy 32:2 means the following

1) bastard, child of incest, illegitimate child

a) bastard

b) mixed population (fig.)

c) born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother or visa versa

http://www.blueletterbible.org...

We clearly see a discripincy here. Several verses are condoning the fact that children should be punished for their parent's iniquities, and otehr verses clearly condemn it.

New contradiction 2: Did Jesus know everything?

A. Yes


Lord, thou knowest all things. John 21:17

B. No

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. -Mark 13:32


I shall point out that the Bible clearly says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever. In otherwords, Jesus is unchangeable.

I ask my opponent, Jesus admitts that he does not know when the return of him will be. Only the Father does. So how can he be God? Let me offer you this syllogism

1. God knows everything
2. Jesus does not know when his return is
3. Therefore, Jesus does not know everything
4. Therefore, Jesus is not God

Back to you, con.


For these reasons I urge a vote for Con
In addition, we must wait till round 5 to state why vote for you. (terms in round 1)


Not too big of a deal. I just wanted to point that out :)

SkepticsAskHere

Con

I thank my opponent for his quick response, and I will no offer my rebuttle.

In a nutshell, my opponent is arguing that Jesus is drawing a comparison of importance, in other words, it is a hyperbole. However, as I pointed out, just because you love A more than B does not mean you have to hate B.

Yes you don’t have to hate B; however Jesus is just saying how much more that we are required to love Him. Why is this still a contradiction if it’s clear that Jesus is using a form of hyperbole?

I also have pointed out that the Greek word is the same exact thing in both contexts. 1 John is indeed stating that the church should abide in the love of Christ. However, we also see that he stated that "If you hate your brother, you have murdered him in your own heart" (paraphrased.)

Yes, this word had to be used to show the great contrast between the two loves.

We see that there is a discripincy here. The Greek language was very discriptive. Furthermore, if that is to be taken as a hyperbole (exadduration) then what else is to be taken as a hyperbole?

My opponent makes a good point. How do we know if any of the Bible is saying what it says, or if it’s just speaking in terms of poetry? Well it’s simple. You would just determine the context of the text, just like with any other form of literature. I have examined the context and obviously Jesus is speaking in poetic terms.

In conclusion this is not a contradiction, rather it’s just Jesus using poetic devices to g His point across.


New Contradiction 1: Shall we be punnished for another's sin?

This is a very interesting “contradiction”. However it seems my opponent has missed a few verses to prove his point. Here are all of them pertaining to this subject.

Do the sons bear the sins of the fathers or not?

Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9 and Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20

  1. Yes they do
    1. (Exodus 20:5) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
    2. (Deuteronomy 5:9) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
    3. (Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving kindness and truth; 7who keeps loving kindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
    4. (1 Cor. 15:22) - "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."
  2. No they don't
    1. (Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."
    2. (Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

Exodus 20:5 is, of course, among the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are arranged in covenant form. The Suzerain-Vassal treaty pattern of the ancient near east is followed in the Ten Commandments. This arrangement included an introduction of who was making the covenant (Exodus 20:2), what the covenant maker had done (20:2), laws (20:3-17), rewards (20:6, 12), and punishments (20:5, 7).

Covenantally, when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful and God has stipulated that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God. That is the case with these verses that deal with the sins visited upon the children. If a father rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the children will suffer the consequences, often for several generations. Whether or not this is fair is not the issue. Sin is in the world, consequences of sin affected many generations.

Also, there is another aspect to these verses. In the Bible there is something called Federal Headship, which pertains to the Jewish court system. This is where if the father had owed a debt to someone, then the sons will continue to pay it off. It’s not necessarily dealing with punishments for sins, but rather the legal matters of the day.

Let’s look at what Hebrews 7:7-10 says.

"But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him."

In the verses in Hebrews we see that Levi, who was a descendant of Abraham, paid tithes to Melchizedek while still in the loins, "seed," of his father Abraham, even though Levi was not yet alive. In other words, Abraham, the father, represented his descendants. As Abraham paid tithes, so also did Levi. Therefore, we can see the concept of Federal Headship represented in the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. Yet, we see in the other verses a declaration of legality in dealing with people. There is no contradiction.



New contradiction 2: Did Jesus know everything?

Jesus was both God and man. He had two natures. He was divine and human at the same time. This teaching is known as the hypostatic union; that is, the coming-together of two natures in one person. In Heb. 2:9 that Jesus was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ." Col. 2:9 says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Jesus was both God and man at the same time.

As a man, Jesus cooperated with the limitations of being a man. That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 that says "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men." Therefore, at this point in his ministry he could say He did not know the day or hour of His return. It is not a denial of His being God, but a confirmation of Him being man.

Before Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection He said the Father alone knew the day and hour of His return. It wasn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience is attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection. Yet, He was still a man (cf. Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5). After Jesus' resurrection, He was able to appear and disappear at will. This is not the normal ability of a man. But, it is, apparently, the normal ability of a resurrected and glorified man. Jesus was different after the resurrection. There had been a change. He was still a man and yet He knew all things.


1. God knows everything
2. Jesus does not know when his return is
3. Therefore, Jesus does not know everything
4. Therefore, Jesus is not God


This syllogism would be of course true, but Jesus did know everything when he achieved his omniscience. However, my opponent doesn’t seem to fully understand the nature of the trinity.

Sources:

http://carm.org...

http://carm.org...

I’m sorry for giving reasons as to why I should win so early in the debate, I didn’t see that part the first time I read it so It’s my bad.

Well I look forward to my opponent’s response in the next round.

Debate Round No. 3
MilitantAtheist

Pro

I thank my opponent again for his quick reply.

I’m sorry for giving reasons as to why I should win so early in the debate, I didn’t see that part the first time I read it so It’s my bad.

All is forgiven!


I shall start from the easy points and work my way upwards. I have given my opponent this syllogism

1. God knows everything
2. Jesus does not know when his return is
3. Therefore, Jesus does not know everything
4. Therefore, Jesus is not God


This syllogism would be of course true, but Jesus did know everything when he achieved his omniscience. However, my opponent doesn’t seem to fully understand the nature of the trinity.


My opponent contends that Jesus, after his Resurrection, achieved his omniscience.

However, my opponent fails to realise that the Bible clearly states that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever." In other words, Jesus cannot change. He is unchangeable. In order for him to have "Achieved" omniscience, it would have required him to change--which is something he cannot do.

New contradiction 2

My opponent contends that , when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful and God has stipulated that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God. That is the case with these verses that deal with the sins visited upon the children. If a father rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the children will suffer the consequences, often for several generations. Whether or not this is fair is not the issue. Sin is in the world, consequences of sin affected many generations.

I will allow him to the argument that a father misleads his family, the effects are felt for generations. However, it is not the child's fault that he is a bastard or an illegitimate child so why should he be not allowed to enter the congregation.

Original Contradiction

My opponent still contends to the point that Jesus was being hyperbolic. However, I asked Taylor a question, "How do we know what is hyperbolic or not?" My opponent responds CONTEXT! However, no matter where in the Bible the same word is used, it is not hyperbolic. So how can we take one passage that Jesus stated and say it was hyperbolic?

Was it hyperbolic when Jesus said the same word when he said that you will be hated of all men?

Also, in the Greek it was ALWAYS literal.

Take a look at this passage.

Matthew 10:34-36 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (emphasis mine)

Variance: διχάζω

1) to cut into two parts, cleave asunder, sever.

This is an important parallel passage to the point that Jesus is speaking.

I am looking forward to my opponent's response. Back to you.

SkepticsAskHere

Con

I thank my opponent for the quick response, and I will now offer my rebuttal.

Contradiction 1: Should we love or hate our family?

My opponent still contends to the point that Jesus was being hyperbolic. However, I asked Taylor a question, "How do we know what is hyperbolic or not?" My opponent responds CONTEXT! However, no matter where in the Bible the same word is used, it is not hyperbolic. So how can we take one passage that Jesus stated and say it was hyperbolic?

Was it hyperbolic when Jesus said the same word when he said that you will be hated of all men?
Also, in the Greek it was ALWAYS literal.

Oh really? I definitely disagree with this statement altogether. My opponent wishes that Greek was always literal to support his side of the debate. When looking at Greek, we must examine the context to understand what the writer was trying to portray, like every other language. For example, in English there could be different meanings for the word green.

The grass is green. (Color)

Matt is looking pretty green. (Sick)

I need some more green. (Money)

If we were to say that green must mean the same thing in every sentence, then the sentences wouldn’t make sense. My opponent’s argument is completely illogical. If we examine the context then we can determine that Jesus is using poetic devices, and we can see that there is no contradiction here.

Contradiction 2: Did Jesus know everything?
My opponent contends that Jesus, after his Resurrection, achieved his omniscience.

However, my opponent fails to realise that the Bible clearly states that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever." In other words, Jesus cannot change. He is unchangeable. In order for him to have "Achieved" omniscience, it would have required him to change--which is something he cannot do.

Well actually God never changes (I am the Lord, and I do not change” – Malachi 3:6). Jesus is God, but as I stated in my first rebuttal of this contradiction in Luke it talks about how Jesus grows in wisdom (“Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and all the people” - Luke 2:52).

This is not a contradiction due to the nature of the trinity.

Contradiction 3: Should a son be held responsible for the father’s sins?

My opponent contends that , when a father misleads his family, the effects of that misleading are often felt for generations. This is because the father is being covenantally unfaithful and God has stipulated that there are punishments to breaking the covenant with God. That is the case with these verses that deal with the sins visited upon the children. If a father rejects the covenant of God and takes his family into sin and rejects God, the children will suffer the consequences, often for several generations. Whether or not this is fair is not the issue. Sin is in the world, consequences of sin affected many generations.

I will allow him to the argument that a father misleads his family, the effects are felt for generations. However, it is not the child's fault that he is a bastard or an illegitimate child so why should he be not allowed to enter the congregation.

My point was that, because the child comes from a background where the father has had a child out of a marriage, then the behavior and sins will be repeated by the children. Just like in today’s society where we know that if someone’s relative is an alcoholic then they are more likely to be an alcoholic. Also, let’s see what the word “bastard” meant to the Israelites in that time period.

A "bastard" in the Old Testament means a child born of an Israelite father and a heathen [non-Israelite] mother.

This also lets us know that the Israelites did not want foreign religions to be mixed in with Judaism, so it would only make sense to make precautions to make sure that this would not occur. This is not a contradiction.

Sources:

http://www.biblegateway.com...

http://www.biblestudy.org...\

http://www.biblegateway.com...

I wish good luck to my opponent in his next round!

Debate Round No. 4
MilitantAtheist

Pro

I thank my opponent for this excellent debate. I thank him for being such a tough opponent. You have proved yourself a worthy opponent.

Oh really? ...For example, in English there could be different meanings for the word green.


I would like to extend a deep apology to my opponent for not being clear. The point I was attempting to make was that in the rest of the Bible, that word is used literally.

I looked back and realize how narrow I was there. Please do forgive me.

Well actually God never changes (I am the Lord, and I do not change” – Malachi 3:6). Jesus is God, but as I stated in my first rebuttal of this contradiction in Luke it talks about how Jesus grows in wisdom (“Jesus grew in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and all the people” - Luke 2:52).


My opponent contends that Jesus does change, it is God that doesn't. However, Hebrews 13:8 clearly disagrees. It appears that my opponent is using the NASB so I shall use it as well.

8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. http://www.biblegateway.com...

whoever the writer of Hebrews was, I believe it to be Paul, points out that Jesus IS the same FOREVER. That is eternity past and eternity future.

Thus, my opponent's argument fails.

My point was that, because the child comes from a background where the father has had a child out of a marriage, then the behavior and sins will be repeated by the children. Just like in today’s society where we know that if someone’s relative is an alcoholic then they are more likely to be an alcoholic. Also, let’s see what the word “bastard” meant to the Israelites in that time period.

That doesn't mean they WILL become an alcoholic. I understand bastard to mean a half-Jew half-gentile child as that is what I understand.
This does not mean the child will repeat the idolatries of his/her mother.


Why vote pro?

Spelling and grammar is tied.

My opponent, in the 2nd round, broke the terms of agreement by stating, "Thus for this reason...vote con." Therefore, I declare a victory because of that term breach. Although I forgive my opponent, Taylor should have read the terms more carefully.


I will leave the voters to decide who had better arguments and sources.

Vote pro!

I wish my opponent the best of luck in the next round.

SkepticsAskHere

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. I think I will engage in more contradictions debates in the future, due to this one.


Contradiction 1: Should we love or hate our family?

I would like to extend a deep apology to my opponent for not being clear. The point I was attempting to make was that in the rest of the Bible, that word is used literally. I looked back and realize how narrow I was there. Please do forgive me.

I forgive my opponent, however I will point out that he makes no defense against the first “contradiction”. I accept his forfeit of this argument.


Contradiction 2: Did Jesus know everything?

8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. http://www.biblegateway.com......

My opponent’s only defense of the second contradiction was this verse. However I will remind my opponent that this epistle was written after the resurrection (which was when it was believed that Jesus achieves His omniscience and then knew all things.)

My opponent has taken another verse out of context to prove a point.

We know that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) and so this is not a contradiction.

Contradiction 3: Should a son be held responsible for the father’s sins?

That doesn't mean they WILL become an alcoholic. I understand bastard to mean a half-Jew half-gentile child as that is what I understand.
This does not mean the child will repeat the idolatries of his/her mother
.

Yes but for this reason it would be unwise to allow someone with that history to be a priest because the Jews were afraid that pagan traditions would mesh with their religion.

My opponent has not shown that this is a contradiction either. Because we know that when we examine the context, the verses in context are speaking specifically to levitical code.

My opponent, in the 2nd round, broke the terms of agreement by stating, "Thus for this reason...vote con." Therefore, I declare a victory because of that term breach. Although I forgive my opponent, Taylor should have read the terms more carefully.

My opponent says he forgave me, but apparently he did not. Well my opponent has forgiven me and taken away the consequences for prematurely saying vote for me, but now uses it as a major voting issue? My opponent has lied about forgiving me and I hope that the voters will take this into account.

For the sources, we have both quoted from the Bible. However, I have quoted multiple sources to support my position, so I should get the vote for sources.

My opponent has offered three different “contradictions”. When we examine the context of all three verses in question, we can see that these are not contradictions at all. These verses are merely my opponent taking them out of context. You may not believe in what the Bible says, you may still believe there are other contradictions, however in this case I should this debate because I have shown that these contradictions are being taken out of context. My opponent has even forfeited his original contradiction! For these reasons and more I urge a vote for Con.

Debate Round No. 5
44 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 5 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
You can change your vote for any debate by simply voting again
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
How did you do that, Reformed Arsenal?
I'm curious...
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I have reported Kohai/MilitantAtheist/whatever for multiaccount voting.
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Kohai/Militantathiest do not multi-account in order to vote for yourself.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Kohai... you cannot create a new account and then vote for yourself in your own debate. How dishonorable can you be?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I hate to say it Skeptic... but I don't think you really answered his objections in a way that warrants a win... but I also don't think that he pressed the objections hard enough to prove conclusively (as his burden of proof requires) so I gave the debate a tie in the area of arguments.

Kohai,

you need to do your research on these. You lose these debates because you post quickly without thinking things through and you use faulty information that you have not checked. Until you stop posting off the cuff incorrect information (like Paul wrote Hebrews, or KJV is the most accurate translation) you are going to continue to lose.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
You put the cart before the horse Roy.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
The fundamental contradiction in Christianity is whether a good Christian embraces family life and fulfills social obligations or whether he renounces family, wanders preaching, and dies a martyr. Christians debated that for centuries.

I think it is fair to say that Christianity has adopted doctrine that resolves the contradictions in the Bible, but that the contradictions are there to be resolved.
Posted by MilitantAtheist 5 years ago
MilitantAtheist
Thank you, ReformedArsenal. For my debate "The Bible is unreliable" I will use the NASB this time.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
For Academic or Intellectual study, the ESV is the most accurate translation that does not sacrifice readability in any extreme way. The NASB is as close to a Word for Word translation that you get, but even the NIV is a reasonable translation to use in this context.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
MilitantAtheistSkepticsAskHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Kohai loses all 7 points for cheating.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
MilitantAtheistSkepticsAskHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro could not carry the BoP, but was not outshadowed. 3:2 Con.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
MilitantAtheistSkepticsAskHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering MilitantAtheist cheating (Kohai is a duplicate account). Also, Skeptics was able to successfully show that the alleged "contradictions" were not contradictions at all.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
MilitantAtheistSkepticsAskHereTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter
Vote Placed by joshizinfamous 5 years ago
joshizinfamous
MilitantAtheistSkepticsAskHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Logic Surpassed that of his opponent.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
MilitantAtheistSkepticsAskHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: If the Bible denies punishing the children for the sins of their father, then a law which codifies the contrary should denounced rather than honored. The multiple natures of Jesus seem to be rationalized oy by using extra-blical theology rather than the context of the Bible alone. The debate subject is whether the Bible contains contradiction, not whether rationalization is possible through independent doctrine. Good debate.