The Instigator
Mirza
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

The Bible contains errors and contradictions, and it can therefore not be the word of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,109 times Debate No: 9679
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (6)

 

Mirza

Pro

Many Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God. The Bible according to them is perfect because it comes from God. However, many people have claimed that many verses are contradictory to each other, e.g. one giving a specific number of Solomon's stalls, other one giving another number, yet they are telling the same story. Many people have also claimed that the Bible contains scientific errors.

I have spent a lot of time reading those verses in context, and I have found out that they are talking about the same things at the same time, which means that they are contradictory to each other. Many verses that contain scientific errors seem to be free of errors when reading the English translation, or the translation in many other language besides Hebrew and Greek, but when reading the translation of some words in Hebrew, it is clear that there are errors. It would be more understandable if a verse from the Old Testament was contradictory to a verse in the New Testament, but these verses are from the New Testament, and are therefore representing the same stories at the same time.

I am challenging any Christian with enough Biblical knowledge to deny these contradictions and errors, without arguing by analogy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contradictions in the Bible:

[1 Kings 4:26] And Solomon had *forty* thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

[The Hebrew word for "had forty" is "'arba`iym", and "a thousand" is "'eleph".]

[2 Chronicles 9:25] And Solomon had *four* thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

[The Hebrew word for "had four" is "'arba`", and "a thousand" is "'eleph".]

This is a clear contradiction, where two verses speak about the same story, whether you quote the verses in context or out of context. Is is forty thousand stalls or four thousand?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2 Kings 8:26] *Two and twenty years old* was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

[The original word for "two" is "shnayim", and "and twenty" is "`esriym".]

[2 Chronicles 22] *Forty and two years* old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

[The Hebrew word for "forty" is "'arba`iym", and "two" is "shnayim".]

Again, if a Christian scholar had to tell somebody whether Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign, or 42 years old, he would be confused if he had read both verses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2 Kings 24:8] Jehoiachin was *eighteen* years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

[The Hebrew word for "was eighteen" is "shmoneh and `asar", because "`asar" means ten, but it can only be used in combination, so "shmoneh + `asar" = 18]

[2 Chronicles 36:9] Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

[The Hebrew word for "was eight" is "shmoneh".]

The main contradiction here is that one verse says Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign, and another verse says he was 8 years old when he began to reign. However, I also noticed that the first verse says he reigned for three months, and the second says he reigned for three months and 10 days, which is also a contradiction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Ezra 2:5] The children of Arah, *seven hundred seventy and five*.

[The Hebrew word for "seven" is "sheba`", "hundred" is "me'ah", "seventy" is "shib`iym", and "five" is "chamesh".]

[Nehemiah 7:10] The children of Arah, *six hundred fifty and two*.

[The original word for "six" is "shesh", "hundred" is "me'ah", "fifty" is "chamishshiym", and "two" is "shnayim".]

The difference between 775 and 652 is 123, which is not a small number. Did Arah have 775 children, or 652 children?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Luke 23:46] And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, *Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit*: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

[The Greek word for "Father" is "pater", "into" is "eis", "thy" is "sou", "hands" is "cheir", "I commend" is "paratithemi", "my" is "mou", "spirit" is "pneuma".

[John 19:30] When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

[The Greek word for "it is finished" is "teleo", meaning to acomplish, or make an end.]

What did he say before he gave up the ghost?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific errors in the Bible:

[Genesis 1:16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

[The Hebrew word for "lights" is "ma'owr", which means "luminary".]

This is an error because the lesser light is referred to the moon, and the moon does give light, but it is not is own light, and a luminous body is one that gives its own light.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Leviticus 11:6] And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

This is an error, because hares do not chew cud.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Daniel 4:10-11] (10)Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. (11)The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth

This is an error because if we place a tree in the middle of the Earth, high enough to reach whatever point beneath the atmosphere, we would not be able to see the end of the Earth, because the Earth is round, not flat. This proves that the Earth is flat according to the Bible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Isaiah 11:12] "...from the four corners of the earth."
[Revelation 7:1] "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth..."
[Job 38:13] That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
[Psalm 96:10] Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

The Earth has no corners because it is not flat, and it does move.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll end my turn by saying that these errors and contradictions are clear. I have debated with a Christian before regarding the errors and contradictions, and did not respond to them, although he responded to some of the errors by arguing by analogy, but he left the contradictions alone. You should note that these errors and contradictions are only a small part of the entire amount to be found in the Bible, and that these verses are taken from the King James Version.

Source:

Hebrew and Greek translation: http://www.scripturet...
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro, for this debate.

I will defend the Bible as a religious book, but not as a textbook of cosmology or perfect chronology.

I'll begin by pointing out that this resolution would only apply to those who take the Bible literally, word for word. However, most Christians do not take the Bible literally, and so we'll consider my other arguments in defense of scripture as being the word of God. I'll first note that the biblical authors were supposed to be inspired by God, which does does not mean that they are perfect beings who never made mistakes. No reasonable person is claiming that God Himself wrote the Bible, dictating every passage unto the ears of the authors. The details of what they wrote often came from their own memories or what they heard from other people. Remember that Christianity survived through oral translation for a very long time. Now consider a typical game of "Telephone." The point here is that some details will obviously become skewed or misinterpreted along the way. The great thing in the Bible's defense is that the errors Pro has pointed out are minor - such as an added or subtracted zero from the end of a number - and in the end don't negate anything of substance that the Bible offers as a moral or religious lesson.

There certainly are occasions where the authors heard directly from God (Jesus), and then you could say that this information came directly from God (as Jesus was a physical manifestation of God); however, most of the Bible was not written down as a first hand account. Additionally, passages are contradictory only if there is no possible way for both passages to be true. One does not need to prove the truth of both passages in order to claim that they are not contradictions, but only to come up with a reasonable way that the two passages could both be true. Only if it is impossible for both passages to not be true do we have a contradiction. So, let's examine Pro's proposed contradictions and see if they hold up.

a) First, Pro introduces one passage claiming that Solomon had 40,000 stalls for horses, and another claimed he had 4,000 stalls. Is this a contradiction? Not necessarily. If Solomon had 40,000 stalls, then he also had 4,000 stalls, meaning that both of these statements would be true. Plus, this is an extremely minor error which I will discuss later on in my evaluation.

b) The next example is similar - was Ahaziah 22 or 42 years old when he ruled? Did Arah have 775 or 652 kids?
Well, I could easily make a metaphorical semantics argument here, but I'll refrain. Instead, I'll attribute this contradiction to a minor error in translation, either from the authors or interpretations. The thing is, you don't know which one's at fault here. Plus, the probability of an error in translation is most likely. Even a bible literalist probably would not agree that one had around 700 children. Instead, "children" was probably a loose interpretation for a word that meant family, students, followers, etc. The point again here is that the moral and religious lesson of the Bible is not changed or deemed contradictory by this minor error.

c) Next let's dissect this verse, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Pro says that this is an error because the lesser light is referred to the moon, and the moon does give light, but it is not is own light, and a luminous body is one that gives its own light. First of all, luminous merely means radiant and does not necessarily imply that something luminous gives off its OWN light, but merely some light, making Pro's statement here false. Second, I fail to see any scientific problem with that verse at all. The moon DOES light the night... so what's your point?

d) Next, Pro lists, "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you." He says that this error occurs because hares do not chew cud. However, ignoring the fact that what's been interpreted as 'hare' and 'cud' are probably mistranslations, the fact of the matter is that Pro cannot prove that the hares were not chewing cud in this particular story. I mean, humans don't eat grass on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean if I retold a story about a human eating grass that it wasn't true.

3) In regard to the earth being conveyed as flat, I'll say this -- Simply saying "the four corners of the earth" doesn't imply that the earth is flat. Instead, it's a figure of speech that simply means spanning the entire world. I use this phrase all the time, i.e. "I would go to the four corners of the earth for you." Not to mention that the four corners of the earth probably referred to specific landmarks, but I digress. I'll move on to Pro's final cited example of this error when he notes, "Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously." He says that this is a flaw because the earth DOES move. However, the purpose of this passage wasn't to convey a scientific reality. Instead, as noted in the Kings James version of the Bible, the point of this message is to say that the Lord reigns over all, and that the earth (people) should stand firm in this regard.

In conclusion, we must acknowledge that as the instigator, Pro has the burden of citing specific inconsistencies in the Bible that challenge the legitimacy of God's word -- not merely point out translation or typo errors. So far he has not challenged any of the lessons taught by the Bible, but merely pointed out minor errors that have nothing to do with the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. As I said, no sane person would argue that the Bible is perfect in terms of its syntax; it's the message that's important.

The reason you should accept my theory about mistranslation is that the Bible is not considered to be perfect from human err, just God's err. In fact, many note the numerous misspellings in the Bible just as proof that if you can misplace words, you can easily misplace numbers as cited in Pro's examples. For instance, "Blessed are the place-makers (instead of "peacemakers"), Matthew 5:9 and "Printers (instead of "Princes") have persecuted me without a cause, Psalm 119:161. So ya see, since the flaws Pro has presented are minor typos, they do not hold any water in this debate.

Moreover, as I said in the beginning, I am defending the Bible as a religious book - not a history or science book. Inevitably there are going to be some mistakes from the humans who wrote it, because they penned the good word at a time where science presumed certain things to be true (i.e. that the earth was flat). However, one most wonder if these mistakes really hinder the ultimate message that the story conveyed. Is noting "the four corners of the earth" is wrong because the earth has no corners really a legitimate argument negating God or the Bible? Nay.

References:
[1] http://www.kingdavid8.com...
[2] http://www.religionnewsblog.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Mirza

Pro

Thank you for accepting my challenge.

I expected that my opponent would reply to the points I made by saying that a contradiction I pointed out is not necessarily a contradiction. Imagine if I - on a random date in the year 2007 - told my mother that on my 10th birthday, I wished for nothing else than to be happy. Then, a few hours later, my mother asked me what it was I wished for on my 10th birthday because she forgot it, then I told her that on my 10th birthday, I wished for nothing else than to live in Australia. This proves that my statements would be contradictory to each other. You may call it lying, mistaking, or something else by your wish.

The God Christians believe in is perfect. He would never misinform people. However, by looking at those mistakes in the Bible, it is misinformation. My opponent is right when she says that the Bible survived through oral transmissions, however, would the God we get familiar with in the Bible allow such thing to happen in a book that supposedly is a message from Him? If the ultimate message in the Bible is to prove that there is a God, then what about other religions that share the same message in their scriptures, but without errors and contradictions? What makes the Bible more authentic than their scriptures? This is a question that has to be answered.

1) Con said that it is not necessarily a contradiction if one passage claims that Solomon had 40,000 stalls for horses, and another one claims that he had 4,000 stalls. This is where more knowledge than what you gain by reading one passage is required. It says in Deuteronomy, chapter 32, verse 4, "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." This passage clearly claims that God's work is perfect. Let me make it clear, God's 'work', not just God. It also says that He is a God of truth. How do we get to know what the truth is, if we through God's work cannot conclude whether Solomon had 40,000 or 4,000 stalls for horses? The passages claiming that Solomon had 40,000 and 4,000 stalls are contradictory to each other, simply because they talk about the same thing, namely whom Solomon bestowed in the chariot cities, and with who. Con's example that if Solomon had 40,000 stalls, then he also had 4,000 stalls, is invalid, simply because this is not an IQ test, but information that is being given to us.

2) It is possible that Arah had so many children, just like it is possible that some Prophets have lived for hundreds of years. This is again the same case as in the other contradictions. One thing you did not respond to was regarding [Luke 23:46] and [John 19:30]. This is not about numbers, but last words. What were Jesus' last words? What will a Christian tell me if I asked him? It is undeniable that those two are contradictory to each other.

3) My point regarding the moon is that the moon according to the Bible has its own light. I was looking for a translation of the Hebrew word, which is "lamp" in English, but I found "luminary" as another word and used it to support my claim.

4) If we assume that Con is right about "the four corners of the earth", then what about the point you were missing about the high tree in the middle of the earth? That passage is not metaphorical. It claims that the sight from a high tree placed in the middle of the earth reached to the heavens, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth. This is a scientific error because even if you climb up Mount Everest, and have an extraordinary vision, you will not be able to see the other side of this planet because it is round, not flat.

5) Regarding 'hare' and 'cud', Con claimed that those two words are probably mistranslations, and that I cannot prove that the hares were not chewing cud in this particular story. Firstly, the Hebrew translation of 'hare' and 'cud' is "'arnebeth" and "gerah". There is no mistranslation here. Secondly, this is not a story, but a law; a command from God for us to abstain from eating the hare because he chews cud (which is wrong). The entire meaning can be found if we read the verse in context, from Leviticus 11:1 to 11:6.

[Leviticus 11:1-6] And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, (2)Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. (3)Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. (4)Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (5)And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. (6)And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

There is no mistranslation nor misinterpretation from my side here. It mentions that God spoke unto Moses and Aaron, telling them which animals they are allowed to eat. Then it mentions that all those animals that chew cud are permitted, except the following: coney, camel, and hare. I have now proven not only that there is an error here, but also that Con was wrong when she said that I cannot prove that hares were not chewing cud in this particular story, simply because this is not a story about a hare chewing cud, but a law/order from God to us.

6) The Bible has no flaws when it comes to the oneness of God, however, it has flaws when it comes to trinity, and Jesus being God. I will talk about that in my next point. What is really important is for the Bible to be free of errors and contradictions, merely because if another monotheistic religion has the same message about God with same historical evidence in its scripture, but without errors and contradictions, then the Bible is wrong. It is pure logic. Why should we pick the Bible which has the same message as another scripture, except that the other scripture has no errors and contradictions whatsoever? It says in Psalms, chapter 18, verse 30, "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried [i.e. flawless/inerrant]: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." If the word of God is flawless, then the Bible is not the word of God. Passages from the Bible are proving it.

7) Con said that I have not yet challenged any of the lessons taught by the Bible. I will now challenge Christians' belief that the Bible speaks about trinity, Jesus being the divine son of God, and that Jesus is God.

Firstly, Jesus himself claims that God is greater than him in several verses. He even says that he himself can do nothing, but only what God wills.

[John 5:30] I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
[John 10:29] My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all
[John 14:28] [Jesus said]"...I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
[Matthew 12:28] But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
[Luke 11:20] But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

Jesus also never claimed that he was God, nor did he say that we should worship him. If you use John, chapter 14, verse 6, which says, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." -- in no way are you proving that Jesus claimed he was God. You have to read the verse in context. If you read John, chapter 14, verse 1-5, you will get to know that Thomas asks Jesus how we can know the way, and then Jesus replies in verse 6 that Jesus himself is the way to God, not God himself. It is known from the Bible itself that even other Prophets, i.e. Moses, were the way, the truth, and the life. Finally, Jesus is not the only son of God. See: Luke 3:23-38
Danielle

Con

Well, Pro, I only have an hour to post this, so here goes. I'm sorry if this round is not as comprehensive as my last; I'll have more time to work on my final and third round argument, during which time I'll wrap up all of my arguments and rebuttals. For now, a quick response to the previous round (since I don't have a lot of time ) --

1. Pro begins by stating that if two statements say different things, that they would be contradictory of one another. I agree. He says "You may call it lying, mistaking or something else by your wish." No, I would call it contradictory; however, my point was that a mistranslation or mistake wouldn't make what the original text was trying to say a contradiction in the first place.

2. Pro continues, "The God Christians believe in is perfect. He would never misinform people. However, by looking at those mistakes in the Bible, it is misinformation." Nowhere through the mistranslation of the Bible is God deceiving anyone. Also, perhaps God is not being deceitful - He's being straightforward (and I use the term He loosely) but people are just misunderstanding or misrepresenting Him. Moreover, Pro's false conclusion in this regard is rooted in fallacies.

3. Next Pro asks what makes the Bible more authentic than other scriptures. In actuality, all religious books have come under scrutiny for contradicting facts throughout the work. These mistakes probably exist for the same reason [1].

4. Pro quotes, ""He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." The problem is that the Bible doesn't come directly from God. Again, God isn't responsible for the mistranslations.

5. Additionally, Pro ignores that there is truth in the message of the Bible in terms of the lessons. For instance, he writes, "How do we get to know what the truth is, if we through God's work cannot conclude whether Solomon had 40,000 or 4,000 stalls for horses?" How many horses Solomon had was completely irrelevant t the lesson in the Bible.

7. "Con's example that if Solomon had 40,000 stalls, then he also had 4,000 stalls, is invalid, simply because this is not an IQ test, but information that is being given to us." My example is perfectly valid.

8. In Greek (the language the New Testament was written in) there are 5 different words for our one word "love." The translators did there best when they translated things. Sometimes they came across words they didn't have a definition for. Here's an example:

Lev 11:6 And the hare, because he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.
Bible critics have a little smirk on their face when they point this verse out, thinking they've won. Hares don't chew cud, they point out. True, but they also don't have hoofs of any kind either. Hmm... Here Hebrew, arnebeth - an unidentified animal, but certainly not a hare - possessing as it is said to characteristics not possessed by the hare. The supposed error in the text is due entirely to the translators' assumption that the English hare and the ancient "arnebeth" were identical. Not true. [2]

9. Pro is failing to realize that the Bible is written with poetry and prose, figurative language and allegory. Sometimes it even uses earthy language to get the point across. In Pro's example regarding the animals and the cud, what the Bible actually translates is that extremities and miseries will come upon the people if they don't straighten up. It doesn't have to necessarily mean they will literally eat their own waste (consequently, there's no mention they did). It's like telling someone they're up a certain well known creek without a paddle. No one believes they will literally be in a real river of feces. It's not a passage to be taken literally.

10. Sometimes a verse can seem to say one thing, but really meant something different when it was written. Words like "prevent" "lead" and "perfect" can have different meanings than what they do now. The Lord's Prayer says "Lead Us Not Into Temptation..." to which Bible critics will ask why God would ever lead people into temptation? The word "Lead" would better rendered as "steer" in our language. In other words, Jesus was saying "Don't allow us to wander into temptation steer us the right way instead..." There are many, many different Bible versions with updated English. The Third Millennium Bible and the Modern King James Bible are both good. Sometimes simply reading the Bible in more modern English will clear up any misgivings.

References and Sources:

[1] http://www.news.faithfreedom.org...
[2] http://usminc.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Mirza

Pro

Con has failed to understand that inconsistencies in the Bible make it inauthentic. Today, we know that there is no copy of the copy of the copy [etcetera] of the original Bible. Let us assume that the main message of the Bible [i.e. belief in God, Jesus, prophets] is the important one, and that many verses have been distorted, and are therefore contrary to each other -- how can we know which verses are authentic? How can we know whether the original Bible told us to believe in one God, or two, or more than that? How can we know what has been distorted and what hasn't? If the answer is that only verses that are contradictory to each other aren't to be taken literally, then you cannot believe that Jesus is God (see: round 2, point 7). My point is that we do not have the original Bible today, so we do not know what it really tells us. Those that are here today are transmitted through many centuries, so how can you prove to me that the inconsistencies are mistranslations and mistakes made through transmissions, but when it talks about the main message, it is authentic? How can we determine what is authentic and what is not? Scientific error = mistranslation. Contradictory verses = mistakes made through transmissions. Main message = authentic/unchanged. That just doesn't hold water.

Assume that I make ten rules that must be followed by my relatives, even after I die. The main rule is that they have to be modest. The main part of my relatives have the original paper with rules on it, and the other part never had the paper, but it was transmitted to them orally. One day, after several years, the main part loses the paper, and the rules have only been on that paper and in their minds. Then both parts decide to write them on a new paper, and each of them must write it on their own paper. After doing it, they find out that their papers [i.e. rules they've written that they knew by heart] are contradictory to each other. Only one of many others have the main rule on his paper. Then they get into a fight, and after a few years, the new members (including the old) decide that they must find a way to gather all the rules into one paper. They do it, and the result is that the main rule [i.e. that they have to be modest] is not the original one, but they don't know it. Through generations, the (original) main rule that I've written is not there. The same applies to the Bible. If it has so many flaws, how can we determine what is a flaw and what is not? How can we determine whether the original Bible told us to believe in two gods, and not one God?

1) Con stated that all religious books come under scrutiny for contradicting facts throughout work, and uses the Qur'an as an example. First, the Qur'an has remained the same since it existed, and there is evidence for that.[1] Second, the Bible faces problems when the Qur'an says:

[Qur'an 2:279] Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah [God]," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
[Qur'an 4:82] Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah [God], they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy [i.e. inconsistencies, errors].

The Qur'an has remained the same, and the Bible hasn't. This is the problem for the Bible. If we assume that the Qur'an has inconsistencies (it hasn't, but we can discuss that too if you wish), just like the Bible, then why should anybody pick the Bible over the Qur'an? Both scriptures tell us to believe in one God, Jesus, and teach good things, but the Bible isn't the same, and the Qur'an is. That is my main question. Qur'an and Bible, same main message (the ultimate religious message Con is referring to), but the Qur'an is original, and the Bible isn't. I'm not trying to prove that the Qur'an is right and Bible isn't in this debate, I am merely trying to tell you that it is illogical to pick an inauthentic source over an authentic source, even though they share the same ultimate message.

2) Con stated that the amount of horses Solomon had was completely irrelevant to the lessons in the Bible. Is it irrelevant that Jesus himself says that God is greater than everything, and that he himself can do nothing, but what God wills? Is it irrelevant that Jesus himself says that God is greater than him? Jesus being God is - according to the Christians - a lesson of the Bible, then how come Jesus never said that he was God, and that we should worship him? In fact, he said that God is greater than him (see: round 2, point 7). This plays a huge role. If those verses are mistranslated, then the whole Bible is mistranslated, and does not teach what the original did. That is logical.

3) Con responds to the point about the hare I made, by saying that 'arnebeth' does not mean 'hare'. The interesting thing though, is that those who defend the claims about errors and contradictions, only claim that a word that represents an error [e.g. hare, Leviticus 11:6] in reality means something else [e.g. hare = an unidentified animal], but when it comes to verses and words that are free of errors, the translation is just as it should be. This does not hold water either.

4) Let me now represent something that - if unfulfilled - proves that the Bible is not the word of God: prophecies. A prophecy cannot be mistaken, if it is coming from God. All Prophecies in the Bible come from God. The Holy Ghost inspired holy people to write down prophecies, and they are those we can see in the Bible.

1. [Luke 1:32-33] [Speaking about Jesus]: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: (33)And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

This is an unfulfilled prophecy [i.e. one that no longer can be fulfilled]. Today, we know that the one who reigns over the the house of Jacob [i.e. Israel] is not Jesus. The verses clearly state that Jesus will reign over Israel forever. The prophecy is so wrong that not only isn't Jesus the rules, but his enemies - the Jews.

2. [Genesis 4:12] [Speaking to Cain]: "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth."

In this verse, God tells Cain that he will never be a wander [i.e. he will settle, not do anything]. A few verses later, Cain builds a city.

[Genesis 4:17] And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

This is also an unfulfilled prophecy.

3. [Jeremiah 36:30] Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.

The verse says that no one will sit on David's throne after Jehoiakim. In the next verse, it says that Jehoiakim's son [Jehoiachin] reigned in his stead.

[2 Kings 24:6] So Jehoiakim slept with his fathers: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.

I can mention many other unfulfilled prophecies, but I will leave it at that.

I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge. It was a pleasure debating with her.

Sources:

[1]http://www.islamicity.com...
Danielle

Con

Thanks for the debate!

- - -

Pro claims that I have failed to understand that the inconsistencies of the Bible make it inauthentic. On the other hand, Pro has failed to realize that just because the Bible is the "word of God" does NOT necessarily mean that it is the WORD OF GOD. Instead, being referred to as the word of God means that it's a literary device to understanding the Christian God. In other words, if I were to write a book called "The Words of My Mother," most people would logically assume that the book contains some specific quotes from her, but also some interpretation and little addendum from me. So, just because the Bible has been mistranslated does NOT mean that the Bible doesn't get across God's message or what people *thought* God's message was. Remember that I'm not defending the Bible has a science or history book; I'm merely saying that it can be used as a religious text.

Moving on, Pro first notes that it is impossible for Jesus to be the son of God. First of all, as Pro pointed out, Jesus never claimed to be God's son. He refers to God as "Father" the same way all people of the time (and today) refer to God as their Father. The idea of the trinity was actually added to the Bible later on after Jesus' death. So, Pro cannot use this so-called contradiction against Jesus, because Jesus never said that he was God.

Further, Pro cites Luke 3:23-38 as proof that Jesus was not the only son of God. That Bible passage merely explains the lineage of Jesus; i.e. Jesus the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi... etc. So, Pro's passage doesn't claim that God had many sons, but merely explains who was the son of whom. Nowhere does this contradict anything, making this a moot point.

Pro continues to further press this issue when he claims, "Is it irrelevant that Jesus himself says that God is greater than him? Jesus being God is - according to the Christians - a lesson of the Bible, then how come Jesus never said that he was God, and that we should worship him? In fact, he said that God is greater than him. This plays a huge role. If those verses are mistranslated, then the whole Bible is mistranslated, and does not teach what the original did. That is logical." ... Pro is wrong. This is a blatant example of the mistranslation I was talking about.

The term "son of God" is used in two main ways in the Old Testament. Neither way denotes any physical relation to God. Rather, the references deal with those who are under divine obedience to the call of God. It is used of Israel as a nation through the Exodus. Hosea 11:1 says, "When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son."1 It is also used in reference to angels. Job 1:6 says, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them." Also, in Job 38:7 it says, "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." These are in reference to angels who are created beings and in no way implies literal dependency from God.

The Term "Son of God" occurs 47 times in the King James New Testament. In reference to Jesus, it is a title as the heavenly, eternal Son who is equal to God the Father (John 5:18-24). It is Jesus who fully reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27). He is the exact representation of the Father (Heb. 1:1-3), He possesses all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18), and Jesus had glory with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5). [1]

Next Pro asks, "If the Bible has so many flaws, how can we determine what is a flaw and what is not? How can we determine whether the original Bible told us to believe in two gods, and not one God?" That's a silly question. Christianity is not ONLY a byproduct of the Bible, but is also part of a large oral tradition and passed on religious culture in general. I think it's fair to say that it would have been nearly impossible for Christianity to first be a polytheistic religion that then turned monotheistic. In other words, sure the Bible will be misquoted or certain things lost in translation over time. However, the "big things" - such as whether Christians believe in 1 or 2 gods - is going to remain consistent.

Moving on to the rebuttal, Pro claims that the Qur'an has been the same over centuries, and then provides a link to a source... which says no such thing. But! My provided source in the previous round proved that the Qur'an DOES have numerous inconsistencies, meaning that my point simply trumps Pro's false one in this regard (one need only to check our sources and/or do a quick Google search to see who deserves the credit on this one). This makes Pro's point that it's non-sensical to accept the Bible over the Qur'an FALSE. Also, the Quran and the Bible do NOT share the same message.

Next Con states, "Those who defend the claims about errors and contradictions, only claim that a word that represents an error, but when it comes to verses and words that are free of errors, the translation is just as it should be. This does not hold water either." LOL why does it not hold water? If someone was reading a paper I wrote and noticed a grammatical error, spelling error or translation error, of course they're going to point it out. Is that enough to make my entire paper invalid? Nope. Why would those defending the Bible point out an error if there isn't one?

Finally Pro introduces what he thinks are a bunch of unfulfilled prophecies, which again are nothing but errors of translation and understanding. Not to mention that I've already pointed out though God was supposed to have inspired scripture, that DOESN'T mean that scripture is PERFECT (God and God alone is perfect). Nevertheless, let's address those so-called inconsistencies:

1) We know that the one who reigns over the the house of Jacob [i.e. Israel] is not Jesus. The verses clearly state that Jesus will reign over Israel forever. The prophecy is so wrong that not only isn't Jesus that rules, but his enemies - the Jews.

Pro should consider taking a theology course. The Jews are NOT enemies of Jesus, and never were. Jesus was a Jew. And in fact, the HOUSE OF JACOB refers to Jews! Newsflash: All Christians were Jews! Then they were Jews who followed Jesus, which is what the "prophecy" implies. In short, Jacob refers to the Jew when his service of God requires toil, struggle and effort ("servants"), whereas Israel refers to the Jew when his service of God is pleasurable and natural ("children") [2].

2) "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth."

Cain was a tiller of the ground (involved with agriculture); this was said to Cain after he committed the first murder, and means that Cain was exiled from his birth family, therefore making him a fugitive and a vagabond. Nowhere in that verse does it ever say that he will FOREVER be these things, again making Pro's point a moot one.

3) "The verse says that no one will sit on David's throne after Jehoiakim. In the next verse, it says that Jehoiakim's son [Jehoiachin] reigned in his stead."

Another mistake. Both King Jehoiakim and his son King Jehoiachin were under a curse from God that their seed would not sit on the throne of David. "None to sit upon the throne of David" in the Old Testament points to the cursed Adamic race of mankind as a whole, who cannot sit on the throne with Jesus in eternity, unless they overcome as Jesus overcame, as stated in Revelation 3:21. [3]

Pro has failed to point out any inconsistencies that I could not counter.

Sources:
[1] http://www.carm.org...
[2] http://www.chabad.org...
[3] http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com...
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tron123 5 years ago
tron123
the bible is (in my eyes) basically a mix of opinions from followers of God and Gods actual words. thats why some things are different if repeated because 2 different people with 2 different opinions are talking about something
Posted by sal 6 years ago
sal
I Researched the hebrew version myself and your first contradiction is false.
It does say 40,000 in Kings and 4,000 in Chronicles, but they are not talking about the same thing.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Mirza if you make a strong case and defeat your opponent and then get bombed (which is unfortunately likely to happen) then you have achieved victory. DDO votes don't matter; your personal ability to debate does.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
I've debated it several times, but not on this site. I don't mind being challenged. If anybody believes that the Qur'an has inconsistencies, then challenge me for a debate. I don't want to start it myself, because many people may vote without even reading everything, and just to let me lose.
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
Or rather

"The quran has NO scientic errors, or contradictions"

If you're confident, you should see no problem with that debate. Or did you already debate that?
Posted by thereal_yeti 7 years ago
thereal_yeti
(This is not a challenge for MYSELF)

If you have the courage..

Maybe you should start a debate titled "The quran has no contradictions" and be pro..

Put your money where your mouth is!
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
If there's one single contradiction in the Qur'an, I'm not a Muslim any longer.

By the way, I'm not saying this to attack the Bible. I respect the Bible because I do believe it contains words spoken by God, however, they have been distorted. But because the Qur'an says God will preserve it, it means that it has no contradictions.

Nobody can answer properly why somebody should be a Christian and not a Muslim. If the Bible is flawed, then why should I believe it? Even if we assume that other monotheistic scriptures are flawed, then what makes the Bible more correct? theLwerd defended the religious message of the Bible, which is illogical because an inauthentic book compared to an authentic book sharing the same message (the Bible and the Qur'an do share the same main message) is not comparable regarding authenticity, so a book that has been distorted and one that hasn't, it's not logical to pick the one whose words have been distorted.
Posted by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
Mirza, you debate PRO on "The Bible contains errors and contradictions, and it can therefore not be the word of God." I see you're Muslim. Do you think the Qur'an does not have contradictions?
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Looks like you were sort of a... disappointment, Lwerd. :)
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
theLwerd, the reason why I did not want to debate with an Atheist is because I knew what kind of responses would come forth. You clearly don't know enough about the Bible, and why contradictions and errors matter. There's a reason why it is called the word of God. And you still haven't answered the question I asked a day ago.

When something is as old as the Bible, and it is proven that words have been distorted, then you don't know what has been distorted and what has not.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
MirzaDanielleTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by lildrummer220 7 years ago
lildrummer220
MirzaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by welldonesteak 7 years ago
welldonesteak
MirzaDanielleTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
MirzaDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
MirzaDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by inspyre 7 years ago
inspyre
MirzaDanielleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03