The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
DATCMOTO
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

The Bible is an Inconsistent Document (II)

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 14 votes the winner is...
DATCMOTO
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,301 times Debate No: 8268
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (14)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that the Bible is an inconsistent document, historically, scientifically, and logically (with itself).
******************************************

Here are collections of verses that represent a biblical contradiction:

Mat 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. "
Act 2:38 - "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ. "

Joh 3:22 - "After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. "
Joh 4:2 - "Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples"

Mar 16:16 - "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. "
Mat 12:37 - "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

Act 26:23 - "That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead. "
1 Kin 17:22 - "And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. "

1 Kin 8:46 - "There is no man that sinneth not. '
1 Joh 3:6 - "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not. "

Jam 1:13 - "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. '
Gen 22:1 - "God did tempt Abraham."

Deu 24:16 - "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."
Deu 5:9 - "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. "

2 Sam 24:9 "Joab then reported to the king the number of people registered: in Israel, eight hundred thousand men fit for military service; in Judah, five hundred thousand."
1 Chr 21:5 "Joab reported the result of the census to David: of men capable of wielding a sword, there were in all Israel one million one hundred thousand, and in Judah four hundred and seventy thousand."

ACT 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
MAT 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Lev 25:1, 17 - "And the LORD spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying... Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God:for I am the LORD your God."
Gen 25:27a - "Let peoples serve you, and nations pay you homage; Be master of your brothers, and may your mother's sons bow down to you"
Lev 25:44 - "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."

2 Pet 2:7-8 - "And [God] delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) "
Gen 19:8 - "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. "

Psa 19:7 - "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."
Heb 8:7-8 - "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:"

Psa 103:8 - "The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy."
Exo 34:6 - "And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,"
Jer 13:14 - "And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."
Lam 3:43b - "Thou hast slain, thou hast not pitied."
1 Sam 15:2a, 3 - "Thus saith the LORD of hosts... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$."
1 Sam 6:19 - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

Heb 13:20a - "Now the God of peace..."
2 The 3:16 - "Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all."
Rom 15:33 - "Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen."
Exo 15:3 - "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."
Psa 18:34 - "He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms."
Psa 144:1 - "Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"

********************************************************

That should be enough for a good little start. But wait, there's more... here's how the Bible contradicts all sorts of stuff...

GE 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
FACT - There is no evidence to support this.

Gen 7:19 Higher and higher above the earth rose the waters, until all the highest mountains everywhere were submerged,
FACT - This never occurred, although there is evidence that the Middle East flooded at one point in time.

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
FACT - The ark was far too small to hold all the animals, and two of each does not constitute a viable genetic population, especially considering all the animal sacrifices Noah performed after the ark landed.

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
FACT - Hares and rabbits do not chew their cud.

GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
FACT - Serpents do not eat dirt.

GE 1:29 God also said: "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;
FACT - This would include several poisonous plants such as hemlock & nightshade that are NOT food.

Gen 7:6 Noah was six hundred years old when the flood waters came upon the earth.
FACT - Humans rarely live past 100, and none have ever lived to 600.

***************************************8

DAT, you have you work cut out for you.

AFFIRMED.
DATCMOTO

Con

Mat 28:19
Act 2:38 -
>First, omission is not an argument. It is not a direct contradiction to omit information.
Secondly, Jesus Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit are One Trinitarian Entity and so are interchangeable: http://www.debate.org...

Joh 3:22
Joh 4:2
>As you are referencing the same book of the Bible and the same writer it is obvious that the latter statement is a clarification rather than a contradiction. Obviously John would have edited himself had he contradicted himself.

Mar 16:16
Mat 12:37
>If you believe in Jesus Christ then not only would you follow His command to be baptized (Matt28:19) But you would also follow His constant commands to control your speech. There is no contradiction here, only different pieces of the doctrine.

Act 26:23 -
1 Kin 17:22
>That child (and Lazarus and a few others) although raised from the dead all died AGAIN. Jesus Christ is the first to be raised to ETERNAL Life.

1 Kin 8:46
1 Joh 3:6
>As every man has to choose to abide in Christ it follows that he has at some point sinned. 1John3:6 means no one continues to sin.

Jam 1:13
Gen 22:1
>God did not tempt Abraham in any real sense as He did not allow him (and NEVER intended to allow him) to kill the boy. The word 'tempt' is simply being used in a different context.

Deu 24:16
Deu 5:9
>The first scripture refers to believers, the second to non-believers.

2 Sam 24:9
1 Chr 21:5
>'fit for military service' and 'capable of wielding' a sword' are not the same thing.

ACT 1:18:
MAT 27:5-7:
>His bloated body 'burst asunder' when it was eventually cut down from the tree.

MAT 27:46,50:
LUK 23:46:
JOH 19:30:
>He said ALL these things. Different witnesses remembered different parts. Omission is NOT an argument.

Lev 25:1, 17
Gen 25:27
Lev 25:44
>Again, you are confusing the relationships between believers and other believers (Lev25:17) and between believers and non-believers.(Gen25::27 and Lev25:44)

2 Pet 2:7-8
Gen 19:8
>Offering your daughters to predatory Sodomites: A clever solution in an impossible situation.

Psa 19:7
Heb 8:7-8
>The Law IS perfect but failed with imperfect men. For example with the Pharisees, who ended up manipulating the Law to elevate themselves.
*Rom8:3-For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

Psa 103:8
Exo 34:6
Jer 13:14
Lam 3:43b
1 Sam 15:2
1 Sam 6:19
>Again, the simple difference between those people in a covenant with God and those who are not.
It's the different between your own offspring breaking the garage window (repayment by pocket money?) and the neighborhood 'trouble maker breaking it, (parents, police etc) your reaction will be quite different.

Heb 13:20a
2 The 3:16
Rom 15:33
Exo 15:3
Psa 18:34
Psa 144:1
>Quite simply He is both. That is not a contradiction by any means. I am sometimes angry and sometimes calm.. so are you, we are made in His image.

GE 6:4
FACT - There is no evidence to support this.
>Here JCMT has suddenly switched from talking about supposed inconsistencies within the Bible (what this debate is actually about) to an omission argument of the physical evidence for giants.

Gen 7:19
FACT - This never occurred, although there is evidence that the Middle East flooded at one point in time.
>'Fact' followed by an opinion! Can we get back to the Bible being inconsistent with itself perhaps? Not inconsistent with your unverifiable opinion?

GEN 7:2
GEN 7:8
GEN 7:9
FACT - The ark was far too small to hold all the animals, and two of each does not constitute a viable genetic population, especially considering all the animal sacrifices Noah performed after the ark landed.
>Again, you are comparing a Biblical account not with itself but with your opinion.

LEV 11:6
FACT - Hares and rabbits do not chew their cud.
>They practice something called Cecotrophy which would make them an unclean animal in exactly the same way. For God to expect the writers of the Old testament to understand or even care about the difference would be stretching the idea of an inconsistency too far.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

GEN 3:14
FACT - Serpents do not eat dirt.
>Here the Bible is speaking figuratively. To eat dirt or dust means to be brought down to earth or to be humiliated. Let us compare this scripture with some OTHER scripture:
*MIC 7:17-They shall lick the dust like a serpent, they shall move out of their holes like worms of the earth: they shall be afraid of the LORD our God, and shall fear because of thee.
And
*ISAI 49:23 And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me.
And
*PSA 72:9 They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.

GE 1:29
FACT - This would include several poisonous plants such as hemlock & nightshade that are NOT food.
>GEN 1:29 is before 'the fall'.. The Bible clearly teaches that the land and its plants were cursed after Adam sinned:
*GEN 317-18 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Gen 7:6
FACT - Humans rarely live past 100, and none have ever lived to 600.
>Again, my opponent has switched from comparing the Bible with itself to comparing it with his own, or popular, opinion. The Bible clearly teaches that most humans lived to be around 900 years in the first few generations:
*GEN 5
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
�2Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
�3And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
�4And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
�5And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
�6And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
�7And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
�8And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
�9And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
�10And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
�11And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
�12And Cainan lived seventy years and begat Mahalaleel:
�13And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:
�14And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
�15And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:
�16And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:
�17And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died. ETC ETC!

DAT, you have you work cut out for you.

>On the contrary, I have easily answered each supposed inconsistency.
My opponent relies on sheer volume rather than logical arguments.
My opponent appears not to understand the difference between comparing the Bible with itself and with comparing it with his own opinion or conjecture.

>>>NEGATED>>>
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

From here out, I'll simply post the verse pair as DAT has done, except where clarification is needed... saves space.

*********************************************************

Mat 28:19 - Act 2:38

The contradiction here is whose name people are baptized in. Since these are both NT texts, there is not expected to be any lack of knowledge of the trinitarian form or anything like that. One states that you baptize in the name of all three, the other that you baptize in just Jesus' name. Stating that they're the same doesn't cut it - you must show some reason for the distinction for the same-ness argument to be salient.

Joh 3:22 - Joh 4:2

This is obviously not a clarification. You do not clarify A by saying NOT A. One verse states Jesus did not baptize. The other states he did. Resolve it.

Mar 16:16 - Mat 12:37

Again - you misunderstand. One states you shall be saved by faith alone; the other by works. Resolve it.

Act 26:23 - 1 Kin 17:22

Regardless of how long it took the child to die, it was still raised from the dead, which directly contradicts Acts. Resolve it.

Jam 1:13 - Gen 22:1

Simply stating there is a contextual difference does not cut it. One says God doesn't tempt anyone. The other says God tempted Abraham. Oh... and you could interpret the whole Book of Job as a temptation. Resolve it.

Deu 24:16 - Deu 5:9

This is obviously false as the command is in the same book of the Bible, given to only the Jews, not the Gentiles. One says God punishes others for sin that's not theirs, the other states that he doesn't. Resolve it.

2 Sam 24:9 - 1 Chr 21:5

Yet again, your word that they are different is not enough. The verses obviously describe the same event. So unless the same person took two different censuses, the contradiction remains. Resolve it.

ACT 1:18 - MAT 27:5-7

I've heard this one before... but the lack of the mention of a hanging suggests that what was important was that Judas committed suicide. The verses disagree on HOW, not the specific events of the hanging. So the contradiction is in the method, not the fact. Resolve it.

MAT 27:46,50 - LUK 23:46 - JOH 19:30

These are Jesus' LAST WORDS. Definitely something the authors would agree on. Resolve it.

Lev 25:1, 17 - Gen 25:27 - Lev 25:44

This "relationship" difference argument utterly fails when you consider Jesus' commandment to love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. One verse prohibits slavery, another commands it. Resolve it.

2 Pet 2:7-8 - Gen 19:8

The Bible upholds rape as just... or rather, offering your virginal daughters to be gangraped by angry sodomites. Resolve THAT with "just Lot."

Psa 19:7 - Heb 8:7-8

A perfect law would work even with imperfect men. Argument failed. Resolve it.

Psa 103:8 - Exo 34:6 - Jer 13:14 - Lam 3:43b - 1 Sam 15:2 - 1 Sam 6:19

Try again - God is slaughtering Israelites here. Slow to anger, rich in kindness, yet commands genocide and slaughters his own people for silly "crimes." Resolve it.

Heb 13:20a - 2 The 3:16 - Rom 15:33 - Exo 15:3 - Psa 18:34 - Psa 144:1

A God of Peace and a God of War? You don't find that even a little contradictory? Your answer above admits that the nature of God is not constant. Do you want to resolve an apparent contradiction by holding that God's nature is not constant over time?

GE 6:4 - FACT

This is a contradiction with REALITY, DAT. Come on now. The Bible makes a prima facia claim about giants. Burden is on the Bible or proponents of it to support the claim. Support it or admit the contradiction.

Gen 7:19 - FACT

Once again - a contradiction with reality. It's not an opinion. The whole planet never flooded. See above about prima facia claims. Resolve it.

GEN 7:2 - GEN 7:8 - GEN 7:9 - FACT

This is no different than if the Bible stated that the circumference of the Earth was 4 miles. These are facts, not opinions. You need to resolve the contradictions in FACT.

LEV 11:6 - FACT

Coprophagous animals eat their poop, NOT chew their cud. Chewing cud involves regurgitation, but not expelling of the food. Coprophagous animals expel their food as poop before eating it again. So unless you are willing to admit that the Israelites were so stupid they couldn't tell the front end of a rabbit from the back... you still need to resolve this inconsistency.

GEN 3:14 - FACT

Well make up your mind... is the Bible figurative or literal. Which parts are which? Your admission of figurative language opens the ENTIRE Bible to interpretation as a figurative document...

GEN 1:29 - FACT

The "fall" was of man, not plants. And even if God started making poisonous plants after Adam sinned, it STILL contradicts Gen 1:29 because they're not for food. Sin/no sin does not change the inedible nature of the plants.

Gen 7:6 - FACT

There is scientific data about human life expectancy going back long before Biblical times. Please educate yourself on some very rudimentary facts. http://en.wikipedia.org...

*********************************************************

>> "On the contrary, I have easily answered each supposed inconsistency."

Actually, you have answered exactly zero of them.

>> "My opponent relies on sheer volume rather than logical arguments."

More like a high volume of logical arguments. There is no logical problem with any of the contradictions as I have presented them. Excepting of course the fact that they are contradictory.

>> "My opponent appears not to understand the difference between comparing the Bible with itself and with comparing it with his own opinion or conjecture."

That's very interesting, considering I've presented no opinion - only Bible verses and well-known facts about the world around us.

AFFIRMED.
DATCMOTO

Con

Mat 28:19 - Act 2:38

"what did you have for dinner?"
"Burger, chips and a coke."
"What did you have for dinner?"
"BurgerKing."
Inconsistent? I'll let the voters decide.
********************************************************************************
Joh 3:22 - Joh 4:2

This obviously IS a clarification.
If anyone is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ then He has, in a sense baptized them. Verse two simply clarifies that He did not physically do so.
"The president sent an extra 3000 men to Iraq today."
Really? Personally? Or were they simply sent in his 'name'? RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
Mar 16:16 - Mat 12:37

At NO point does the word ALONE appear in either text.
(1)to stay fit eat a varied diet.
(2)To stay fit exercise regularly.
Inconsistency or just equally valid advice? RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
Act 26:23 - 1 Kin 17:22

Raised to LIFE. Not raised back to the sinful, fallen nature but to REAL ETERNAL LIFE.
You should really concede points like this where you are obviously wrong as it only makes you appear petty and hard nosed. RESOLVED. (both times)
********************************************************************************Jam 1:13 - Gen 22:1

We'll let the voting members decide what cuts and what does not shall we? Everything ever written or spoken is contextual, especially the Bible. God does not tempt us in the negative "go on, do some evil" but in the "show me what you have learned" sense. God tests, satan tempts. RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
Deu 24:16 - Deu 5:9

You misunderstand. There were many Jews who broke the covenant with God, those God punished even to the 3rd and 4th generation. Those who kept the Law He did not. RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
2 Sam 24:9 - 1 Chr 21:5

Again, we'll let the voting members decide what is enough.
Here you take two entirely different phrases and assume the same meaning, the exact OPPOSITE of how you have been arguing for every other verse! RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
ACT 1:18 - MAT 27:5-7

Now you are simply adding an omission. You are ascribing method where none is implied. The simple explanation already given amply explains this wording. RESOLVED. (already)
********************************************************************************
MAT 27:46,50 - LUK 23:46 - JOH 19:30

The last words that the hearer HEARD. RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
Lev 25:1, 17 - Gen 25:27 - Lev 25:44

You do not decide which arguments fails and which do not. Please allow the voting members that privilege. Allow me to elaborate on the different natures of the Old Testament and the New. The former is a shadow of the latter. What happens physically in the first happens Spiritually in the second. We cannot know, or show mercy unless we understand what justice is first. RESOLVED.
*******************************************************************************
2 Pet 2:7-8 - Gen 19:8

But God did NOT allow any such thing to happen to Lot's daughters. If the Bible taught or 'upheld' gang rape surely God would have allowed it to prove His point? RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
Psa 19:7 - Heb 8:7-8

But as the scripture I've already provided clearly shows, THE BIBLE clearly teaches that the law failed because of imperfect men. *Voters please note that my opponent has yet again resorted to arguing his own opinion rather than comparing the Bible with ITSELF. RESOLVED. (round1)
********************************************************************************
Psa 103:8 - Exo 34:6 - Jer 13:14 - Lam 3:43b - 1 Sam 15:2 - 1 Sam 6:19

Now you are simply imposing your own judgment on WHEN God should finally lose His temper. You are treating an absolute, objective Entity by your subjective standards of 'slow to anger' etc.
RE~SOLVED!
********************************************************************************
Heb 13:20a - 2 The 3:16 - Rom 15:33 - Exo 15:3 - Psa 18:34 - Psa 144:1

Now you have switched from arguing whether the Bible is contradictory to arguing whether GOD is contradictory. The Bible could actually state 'God is contradictory' and in NO way be contradictory ITSELF. RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
GE 6:4 - FACT

But in your OPINION miraculous healings and seas parting and resurrections are contradictory to reality. They are not according to the BIBLE. *Voters please note that my opponent has abandoned the agreed arena of debate for his own opinion and conjecture. RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
Gen 7:19 - FACT

We are NOT arguing whether the Bible contradicts reality but whether it contradicts ITSELF.
RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
GEN 7:2 - GEN 7:8 - GEN 7:9 - FACT

NO. If the Bible stated that the earths circumference were 4 miles and then 80s miles then THAT would be a contradiction within the agreed confines of this debate. RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
LEV 11:6 - FACT

No, it is not poop. Although it is expelled anally it is totally different from normal poop. They re-chew the food in just the same way, which end is unimportant, only that it is an unclean animal. RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
GEN 3:14 - FACT

It is both. Asking me to state 'which parts are which' is a cynical attempt to portray discernment as a haphazard affair, where as in reality the Bible is easily understood by children. RESOLVED.
********************************************************************************
GEN 1:29 - FACT

AGAIN, I have already provided scripture to show that the Bible clearly teaches that the 'fall' effected all of creation, not just man. RESOLVED. (round 1)
********************************************************************************
Gen 7:6 - FACT

"Before Biblical times" This statement typifies my opponents confusion over the parameters of the debate. How can there possibly be 'before Biblical times' if we are debating whether the Bible is consistent with itself?
********************************************************************************

My opponent relies on a 'superior attitude' rather than valid responses or reasoned debate. (when he understands the debate that is.)

"The proposition on offer is that the Bible is an inconsistent document, historically, scientifically, and logically (with itself). " NOT with 'facts' NOT with your opinion. With ITSELF.

I seriously do not see how you can recover from this fiasco.

Negated.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Let us correct a few things first...

>> ""The proposition on offer is that the Bible is an inconsistent document, historically, scientifically, and logically (with itself). " NOT with 'facts' NOT with your opinion. With ITSELF."

I love that you later deliberately misunderstand the resolution. There are three types on inconsistencies: first, with history, second, with scientific fact, and third, with other parts of the Bible. Surely you can understand something as simple as that.

>> "My opponent relies on a 'superior attitude' rather than valid responses or reasoned debate. (when he understands the debate that is.)"

This makes me giggle, considering my opponent considers "magic" to be a valid response in reasoned debate. It is clear which of us understands the subject matter and which does not.

***********************************************************************

Mat 28:19 - Act 2:38

Baptize in Jesus' name only or in the name of the whole blessed trinity? Furthermore, the trinitarian concept wasn't established until the Council of Nicea during the reign on Constantine. At the time the gospels were authored, there was no concept of the trinity at all. The verses are still in conflict, even if the "father, son, and holy ghost" references were added later.

Joh 3:22 - Joh 4:2

It is no clarification to state the opposite. One verse explicitly states that Jesus baptized people. The other states that he did not baptize anyone. How do you resolve the two notions that Jesus went to Judea and baptized people, but Jesus "baptized not" ?? Obviously, they are irreconcilable.

Mar 16:16 - Mat 12:37

Considering the Bible outlines nearly 30 different ways to be saved, there are multitudes of contradictions on this one issue. However, you can easily see the inconsistency when you consider James 2:17 - "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." This states the faith AND works are necessary to be saved, and if my "debate by omission" is as invalid as you say, you must apply the same concept here, and find both verses woefully lacking in consistency with other parts of the Bible.

Act 26:23 - 1 Kin 17:22

The concept of eternal life was unheard of until Jesus began preaching it. The passage in Acts 26 is a reference to a prophecy: "Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: The Christ... should be the first that should rise from the dead." Curiously, this passage is not found in the OT, which shows ANOTHER contradiction, and also clarifies that it means ordinary life, not eternal life.

Jam 1:13 - Gen 22:1

Apparently you are confused by this contradiction. Yes indeed - I am happy to let the voters decide if this represents an inconsistency: God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. God did tempt Abraham. Inconsistent? Of course!! Egregiously so!!

Deu 24:16 - Deu 5:9

Oh so now this is for some Jews and not others?? Considering ALL people are children of God and supposedly bound by his law, it doesn't really matter anyway. The inconsistency is not in which people God punishes, but the method by which he does so. The verses are not set up in a way that makes a distinction between law-abiding and sinful Jews. It is a perfect example of God's injustice and his lack of consistency.

2 Sam 24:9 - 1 Chr 21:5

Regardless of how I present the verses, the fact remains that somehow, the two census numbers for the same event are different by some 430,000 people. Kings shows that the Jews are bad at math (with their value of pi), but 430,000 when counting?? Really??

ACT 1:18 - MAT 27:5-7

I will admit that the case of Judas is somewhat nebulous, but in reading the verses, it makes no sense to deliberately read one to accord with the other. One verse gives the reader the impression that Judas hanged himself; the other, that he committed Hari Kari.

MAT 27:46,50 - LUK 23:46 - JOH 19:30

What kind of idiot would leave the CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS, one of the most important events in the Bible without waiting to see if he had more to say? Your explanation is laughable and makes absolutely no sense at all.

Lev 25:1, 17 - Gen 25:27 - Lev 25:44

Your ramblings have nothing at all to do with slavery. Here we have three statements:

1) You shall not oppress one another.
2) You can lord over other nations.
3) You shall have slaves.

They make sense if you consider "one another" to mean only Jews, but the fact that the Bible continuously makes reference to your neighbor as not necessarily a Jew (story of the Good Samaritan), this verse would have the be deliberately misinterpreted for it to make any sense.

2 Pet 2:7-8 - Gen 19:8

True - there was no gang raping. The angels pulled Lot inside and killed everyone outside the house. Then Lot's family escaped to the mountains, where his virginal daughters got him drunk, had sex with him, and conceived children (Gen 19). By your logic, since God allowed this to happen, murder, drunkenness, incest, pre-marital sex, and date-rape are perfectly acceptable. Lot was by no means "just."

Psa 19:7 - Heb 8:7-8

Pray tell WHERE in the Bible it states that the law failed because of imperfect men? Unless you can provide this point, the inconsistency stands.

Psa 103:8 - Exo 34:6 - Jer 13:14 - Lam 3:43b - 1 Sam 15:2 - 1 Sam 6:19

I find it hard to believe that an entity that is "plenteous in mercy" would kill 50,070 people in a "great slaughter" because they looked into the ark of the lord.... which happens to be the chest where the tablets with the 10 Commandments were kept. So God killed a LOT of people for looking in a box. What kind of mercy is that???

Heb 13:20a - 2 The 3:16 - Rom 15:33 - Exo 15:3 - Psa 18:34 - Psa 144:1

The verses above deliver contradictory representations of the same deity. They are of course inconsistent. What kind of consistency is there in saying: God is a god of peace and a God of war? Unless he is both... which goes against "Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means."

GE 6:4 - FACT

My opinion and historical record are two different things. This one contradicts history.

Gen 7:19 - FACT

Your sputterings don't actually address this... I'm still waiting.

GEN 7:2 - GEN 7:8 - GEN 7:9 - FACT

Again... I'm waiting. Do the math... it wouldn't fit, not all the animals could get there, they wouldn't survive the offerings at the end....

LEV 11:6 - FACT

What, pray tell, do you expel anally that ISN'T poop?!? Coprophagous animals eat their poo. This is NOT chewing cud.

GEN 3:14 - FACT

Come now... you have to have some sort of criteria for which things are literal and which are figurative...

GEN 1:29 - FACT

You have yet to provide a verse... the one you DID provide states, "thou shalt eat the herb of the field," which simply reinforces the point... there are poisonous herbs in the field... they may not have been in EDEN, but they're still there.

Gen 7:6 - FACT

My opponent's confusion about "before Biblical times" simply underscores his radical misunderstanding of reality. He has not actually addressed the point...

*************************************************************************

My opponent also dropped argumentation on these verses:

1 Kin 8:46 - "There is no man that sinneth not. '
1 Joh 3:6 - "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not. "

I thank him... even one inconsistency fulfills the resolution, and he has conceded this one. I can hardly blame him... as this is one of the most obvious contradictions in the whole Bible...

AFFIRMED
DATCMOTO

Con

The charge that I have intentionally misunderstood the parameters of this debate for my own gain is one I take seriously.
"The proposition on offer is that the Bible is an inconsistent document, historically, scientifically, and logically (with itself). "
To my mind, that (with itself) applies to all of the previous words within the sentence.
If not..
Whose version of history would we choose to compare it with?
Which epoch of scientific inquiry would we judge it by?
There would only have to one single dissenting theory about anything anywhere for the Bible to be inconsistent within this ludicrous framework.
My opponent's very next line is:
" Here are collections of verses that represent a biblical contradiction:"
*************************************************************************************
Mat 28:19 - Act 2:38
At least now you are beginning to debate. You have introduced a new element to your argument: The Trinitarian doctrines acceptance at Nicea.
Unfortunately this does not further your cause as you have now strayed into comparing the Bible with a history and not with itself.
*************************************************************************************
Joh 3:22 - Joh 4:2
The disciples baptized at Christ's behest. There is then a clarification to show He did not physically do so.
Another example: "Hitler invaded Poland." Clarification: "Hitler sent his army into Poland, He did not enter the country personally until they had surrendered."
*************************************************************************************
Mar 16:16 - Mat 12:37
It does not explicitly states that 'This is the only way to be saved' so no inconsistency.
*************************************************************************************
Act 26:23 - 1 Kin 17:22
Ah, now you are comparing the Bible with itself.
However, the Bible certainly does teach of eternal life in the old Testament. Here are some scripture samples:
Genesis 3:22�(New King James Version)
22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"
Psalm 16:11
You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.
*************************************************************************************
Jam 1:13 - Gen 22:1
It is a question of motive: Satan wants us to succumb to temptation, God wants us to resist temptation.
One of them is benevolent and the other malevolent. These scriptures simply reveal this distinction.
************************************************************************************
Deu 24:16 - Deu 5:9
Again, you are simply confusing your personal view that 'God is inconsistent' with the debate on whether the Bible is inconsistent.
*************************************************************************************
2 Sam 24:9 - 1 Chr 21:5
The size of the difference in numbers (430,000) adds weight to my proposition (that it is a different count) as no one could make a mistake that big.
****************************************************************************
ACT 1:18 - MAT 27:5-7
It makes as much sense to 'deliberately read one to accord with the other' as it does to read one in contradiction with the other.
****************************************************************************
MAT 27:46,50 - LUK 23:46 - JOH 19:30
*Voters please note that my opponent has begun his usual use of emotives: 'idiot', 'laughable' etc..
These verses easily represent the strongest case for Biblical inconsistency.
The Gospels do contradict each other. Yes, you heard me right.. BUT, before my opponent claims his pallid little victory, let me explain exactly why that does NOT make the Bible itself inconsistent.
If the Bible presented the four Gospels as completely consistent with one another then they would be little more than exact replicas or carbon copies. If that was the case then why use four at all? Why not just pick (any) one?
Because a very large part of Gods plan of salvation is to give us the dignity of claiming a part of that salvation for ourselves. So the four Gospels are presented in a 'warts and all' fashion that actually adds weight to their authenticity in that if they were manufactured, the hoaxers would never allow so many glaring inconsistencies. They would have 'tidied it up'.
****************************************************************************
Lev 25:1, 17 - Gen 25:27 - Lev 25:44
*Emotive: 'ramblings'
Having a slave does not mean you shall oppress him. In fact the Bible explicitly teaches not to oppress ones slaves:
Ephesians 6:9�(New King James Version)
9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.
*************************************************************************************
2 Pet 2:7-8 - Gen 19:8
You are simply comparing that which the Bible states and your own opinion.
*************************************************************************************
Psa 19:7 - Heb 8:7-8
This is now the second time I have posted this scripture.
Romans 8:3 (New King James Version)
3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,
********************************************************************************
Psa 103:8 - Exo 34:6 - Jer 13:14 - Lam 3:43b - 1 Sam 15:2 - 1 Sam 6:19
Again, you are simply stating your personal opinion or judgment. You are not comparing the Bible with itself.
********************************************************************************
Heb 13:20a - 2 The 3:16 - Rom 15:33 - Exo 15:3 - Psa 18:34 - Psa 144:1
If God is a God of peace and war then it is in no way inconsistent for the Bible to describe him as either on separate occasions.
********************************************************************************
GE 6:4 - FACT
But we are not debating whether the Bible is inconsistent with history but whether it is historically inconsistent. (with itself)
*************************************************************************************
Gen 7:19 - FACT
Emotive: 'sputterings'
Supposed inconsistency with History/Opinion not within the Bible.
*************************************************************************************
GEN 7:2 - GEN 7:8 - GEN 7:9 - FACT
Supposed inconsistency with History/Opinion not within the Bible.
********************************************************************************
LEV 11:6 - FACT
Again, I have already posted this link, I reproduce the relevant part:
from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org...
" The cecotrope then passes through the colon, the anus, and is consumed by the animal. The process occurs 4 to 8 hours after eating. This type of reingestion to obtain more nutrients is SIMILAR TO THE CHEWING OF CUD IN CATTLE."
********************************************************************************
Gen 3:14-fact
The criteria is simply 'discernment'.
*************************************************************************************
Gen 1:29-fact
*GEN 317- "Thou shalt not eat of it: CURSED IS THE GROUND FOR THY SAKE"
*************************************************************************************
Gen 7:6-fact
There can be NO 'before Biblical times' in a discussion of supposed Biblical inconsistency.
*************************************************************************************
1 Kin 8:46 (PASTED FROM ROUND 1)
1 Joh 3:6
>As every man has to choose to abide in Christ it follows that he has at some point sinned. 1John3:6 means no one continues to sin.
Debate Round No. 3
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

My opponent's underhanded attempt to restructure the resolution to his benefit continues. I would direct the reader to this debate (http://www.debate.org...) with the same opponent and resolution where he did not challenge the nature of the resolution till the last round. It is very clear that "with itself" is a clarification on logical consistency. Historic and Scientific consistency is necessarily related to the relevant conceptualizations. For example, it makes no sense to view the Bible as scientifically accurate when the principles of science weren't developed till 1500 years after the book was written. Also, the primitives who wrote the Bible did not have the necessary tools to make actual historical inquiries. For example, there is no reason to suppose the whole world flooded, when in reality, the Israelites only conceptualized what is currently the Middle East, North Africa, and the Caucuses as the entire "world." They would have had no way to even check if North America was under water... Thus, the resolution stands as it is, and as common understanding would have it. NOT as DAT wishes to twist it to see fit.

*********************************************

Mat 28:19 - Act 2:38

Ignored by my opponent. Historical facts are obviously relevant.

Joh 3:22 - Joh 4:2

You would think that there would be an explicit difference between being baptized by the SON OF GOD and being baptized by his followers. To suggest that the second verse is a mere clarification ignores the fact that the Gospel of John is a very spiritual text that would have hit this point very hard, as it would emphasize Jesus' divinity.

Mar 16:16 - Mat 12:37 - Jam 2:17

These verses state that you need faith and works, just faith, and just words to be saved. But it also says you can be condemned on grounds of faith and words. However, in Acts 16, Paul simply states that faith is all that is required when he is directly asked. So... which is it?

Act 26:23 - 1 Kin 17:22

The promise of eternal life in the OT is all well and good, but the first of those passages refers to Adam/Eve before the fall. The second is from Psalms, which undoubtedly references Genesis. The passage from Acts refers to a NONEXISTENT prophecy from the OT. The passage you reference is from the tree of life - AFTER the fall of man in Gen 3:1-19. It is FORBIDDEN to reach eternal life. So we have the contradiction of Jesus being the first to rise from the dead, as well as a missing prophecy... there are two problems here to solve.

Jam 1:13 - Gen 22:1

How many times DAT?? James says God doesn't tempt. Genesis says God tempted Abraham. NOT Satan tempted. GOD tempted.

Deu 24:16 - Deu 5:9

I'm still waiting on this one... my opponent doesn't seem to see a problem with God telling the same people that he will punish them for only their own sins, but then telling them that he'll punish their children for 4 generations as well...

2 Sam 24:9 - 1 Chr 21:5

You just told me that nobody could make a 430,000 mistake. Yet it appears in the Bible. Thank you for conceding this one. Ask yourself why on earth the same person would take two different censuses at the same time for the same purpose... The notion that it adds weight to YOUR argument is like saying, "The more inaccurate it is, the more consistent and true it is."

ACT 1:18 - MAT 27:5-7

When the general reading of the text involves a facial contradiction, that contradiction must be resolved while retaining the meaning of the text, NOT changing the meaning. I'm still waiting...

MAT 27:46,50 - LUK 23:46 - JOH 19:30

>> "The Gospels do contradict each other."

Conceded. Apparently, DAT has abandoned his earlier position that the Bible is always true and infallible, stating that it was never presented to be "completely consistent." This is obviously grounds for concession.

Lev 25:1, 17 - Gen 25:27 - Lev 25:44

The Bible also teaches that when you conquer a race, you can take the women to be your (unwilling) wives. Sounds like sexual slavery to me. That sounds pretty oppressive: "But the women... and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself" (Deu 20:14a). The Bible commands and permits all sorts of slavery. Abraham himself even prostitutes his wife as a military tactic in Genesis 20. All while God has a doctrine of non-oppressiveness...

2 Pet 2:7-8 - Gen 19:8

Only if my opinion of "just" is radically different than common conceptions... tell me - are the actions of Lot just in your eyes? Impregnating your own daughters? Offering them to be raped? Are those actions JUST? You have to defend their justness to save a contradiction here... a place where even angels fear to trod (HAR!!)

Psa 19:7 - Heb 8:7-8

Yes, we've heard that passage. How could a law by God be "weak through the flesh" if God, who created it, is not OF the flesh? A perfect God could create a covenant that would account for all oddities of human behavior. I'm still waiting to hear on that point.

Psa 103:8 - Exo 34:6 - Jer 13:14 - Lam 3:43b - 1 Sam 15:2 - 1 Sam 6:19

My opinion that looking in a box is a silly crime? Let's put it to the voters, as you are fond of saying. God, who is slow to anger and rich in kindness slaughters 50,070 people for looking in a box... what mercy... how slow to anger...

Heb 13:20a - 2 The 3:16 - Rom 15:33 - Exo 15:3 - Psa 18:34 - Psa 144:1

"PEACE BY ALL MEANS ALWAYS." Do you not read anything I post?

GE 6:4 - FACT

Dropped by DAT.

Gen 7:19 - FACT

Dropped by DAT.

GEN 7:2 - GEN 7:8 - GEN 7:9 - FACT

Dropped by DAT.

LEV 11:6 - FACT

Wow DAT... I'm impressed by your ability to cut the actual relevant parts from your argument. From your own source: "Cecotropes are passed through the intestines and subsequently reingested for added nutrients in a process known as "caecotrophy", "caecophagy" "pseudorumination", "refection", or "coprophagy"" Coprophagous animals DO NOT CHEW THEIR CUD. It is SIMILAR. But then again, oil and water are similar, but one is not the other. The Wiki source even reads: "Coprophagy in Leporids and Other Mammalian Herbivores." Leviticus says "chews its cud" not "eats its poop." Without proper investigative tools, the Israelites would have no way to know that rabbit feces contains nutrients.

Gen 3:14 - FACT

Your "criteria" involves praying to know if the Bible is correct. EXTRAORDINARILY circular. Put it to the voters.

Gen 1:29 - FACT

God created the plants before the creation of man himself, much less fall of man. Interesting that all these plants would suddenly turn poisonous with no sort of word from God other than "cursed is the ground." The curse references the fact that Adam and Eve were to "eat bread, till thou return unto the ground" and eat the "herb of the field" instead "of every tree of the garden." Floxglove, nightshade, milk thistle... they have ALWAYS been poisonous.

Gen 7:6 - FACT

Yet again, if you'd bothered to read the source (http://en.wikipedia.org...) you would see that it covers Biblical times as well... giving the life span of the Bronze Age man at 18 years. The Bronze age would have ended in the Middle of the OT, but the next time period has an average lifespan of 40-ish years.

1 Kin 8:46 - 1 Joh 3:6

Original sin aside, there is absolutely no reason a non-Christian could remain sinless. The verses contradict each other.

*****************************************************

Readers, you will see that throughout this debate, my opponent has attempted to weasel his way out of not only the resolution, but common readings of the text in question, as well as divert your attention from his lack of argument by simply referring to my arguments as "emotive." That's all well and good, but as you can see, he has woefully abandoned all reason in his conjecture. The debate is clear.

AFFIRMED.
DATCMOTO

Con

At the absolute best my opponent has worded his proposition in so vague a manner as to allow this kind of debacle to develope.
I 100% refute the accusation that I have intentionally misunderstood the nature of the debate.
Those who know me on debate.org know me as a somewhat over earnest Christian. They may judge me as delusional or mis-guided but I would hope they know I am nothing if I am not sincere.
On that note, I am happy to allow my reputation to speak on this matter. As must JCMT.
*********************************************
Mat 28:19 - Act 2:38
>There are no historical facts. Only competing histories.
**********************************************
Joh 3:22 - Joh 4:2
" the Gospel of John is a very spiritual text that would have hit this point very hard, as it would emphasize Jesus' divinity."
>Another omission argument.
*********************************************
Mar 16:16 - Mat 12:37 - Jam 2:17
>Which of these actions do you need to drive a car?
(1)turning the steering wheel
(2)applying the brake pedal
(3)applying the gas pedal
(4)shifting the gear shift
All of them right? Do this list contradict itself?
**********************************************
Act 26:23 - 1 Kin 17:22
"The concept of eternal life was unheard of until Jesus began preaching it." (from R3)
"The promise of eternal life in the OT is all well and good" (from R4)
>A good example of my opponent's complete inability to stick to any semblance of an actual debate.
**********************************************
Jam 1:13 - Gen 22:1
>Tempt in WHICH sense? As satan (to sin) or as God tempts? (to resist)
***********************************************
Deu 24:16 - Deu 5:9
>Simply restating the original argument only reveals my opponents contempt for me in general and for this debate in particular.
***********************************************
2 Sam 24:9 - 1 Chr 21:5
>No concession. It's a simply a different census of the same army with a slightly different criteria.
**************************************************
ACT 1:18 - MAT 27:5-7
>A general reading would be the one that generations of readers and scholars (as well as film and television producers) have ALL agreed upon. Judas HANGED himself.
***************************************************
MAT 27:46,50 - LUK 23:46 - JOH 19:30
>The Gospels being inconsistent is NOT the same as the The Bible itself being inconsistent. Again, you claim concession at the expense of the argument at hand: If the Bible presented the Gospels as being totally inconsistent then why have 4 and not (any) 1? That you have ignored this logic is telling.
***********************************************

Lev 25:1, 17 - Gen 25:27 - Lev 25:44
"Sounds like sexual slavery to me. That sounds pretty oppressive"
>When refuted with scripture my opponent falls back to comparing the Bible with his personal opinions. I cannot argue that the Bible is inconsistent with your subjective morality. Sorry.
********************************************
2 Pet 2:7-8 - Gen 19:8
" tell me - are the actions of Lot just in your eyes? "
>Now he wants me to begin comparing the Bible with MY subjective opinion!
Emotive: (HAR!!)
**************************************************
Psa 19:7 - Heb 8:7-8
>My opponents asks for the scripture.
He receives it. Twice.
He switches to a comparison with his own subjective morality.
****************************************************
Psa 103:8 - Exo 34:6 - Jer 13:14 - Lam 3:43b - 1 Sam 15:2 - 1 Sam 6:19
>For disobedience. The nature of the disobedience is immaterial.
***************************************************
Heb 13:20a - 2 The 3:16 - Rom 15:33 - Exo 15:3 - Psa 18:34 - Psa 144:1
"PEACE BY ALL MEANS ALWAYS."
>This obviously refers to eternity when all things have been completed.
**************************************************
GE 6:4 - FACT
>Outside debate parameters.
**************************************************
Gen 7:19 - FACT
>Outside debate parameters.
**************************************************
GEN 7:2 - GEN 7:8 - GEN 7:9 - FACT
>Outside debate parameters.
**************************************************
LEV 11:6 - FACT
>I believe I have convincingly shown that the difference (between chewing the cud and Cecotrophy) does not amount to an inconsistency.
*****************************************************
Gen 3:14 - FACT
>The criteria for discernment of the Bible would be to BEGIN by not having a mono-maniacal obsession with proving every last detail to be false.
*************************************************
Gen 1:29 - FACT
" nightshade, milk thistle... they have ALWAYS been poisonous."
>Again, when refuted with scripture my opponent simply SHOUTS his personal opinion.
*****************************************************
Gen 7:6 - FACT
>Outside debate parameters.
*****************************************************
1 Kin 8:46 - 1 Joh 3:6
"Original sin aside, there is absolutely no reason a non-Christian could remain sinless."
>A completely unbiblical personal opinion.
*" For ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God." Romans 3:23

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate challenge and for all the time and hard work he has put into it.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DATCMOTO 5 years ago
DATCMOTO
by JustCallMeTarzan 1 day ago
JustCallMeTarzan
From DAT in the forums:

"I even conceded that the Bible does contradict itself and STILL WON!"
Posted by DATCMOTO 5 years ago
DATCMOTO
Why torment yourself like this Tarzan?
I wasn't talking about votes (which is what YOU are trying to influence now) I was referring to my personal opinion that I beat you HOWEVER the votes go.

Matthew 12:30 (The Message)

30"This is war, and there is no neutral ground. If you're not on my side, you're the enemy; if you're not helping, you're making things worse.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
From DAT in the forums:

"I even conceded that the Bible does contradict itself and STILL WON!"
Posted by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
He may be arguing from that perspective, but I have to judge from within the scope of the debate. *sigh*

1. No man is completely faithful because no man "abideth in him." If man fully committed to (abideth in) God, they would not sin. Therefore those that abideth in him(do not sin/don't exist). Or so the argument goes.

2. Ordinary people do not go around distinguishing temptation to act by sources because all motives are assumed to be internal. However, in a world with a personal God, it does make sense. God's commands are directives to be obeyed and the difficulty sets your will against God's. This can hardly be thought of as the same as diabolic temptation, as God is already showing you the way by directing you to it. Satan's recommendations are propositions to be ignored, and the skill in which they are delivered sets your wisdom against Satan's wiles. This temptation leads you to stray from the path you are already on. This is the difference between the 'deliverance' of temptation you proposed and the 'existence' of temptation that is inherent in free will.

The source of the impulse to break from God is free will or Satan, but it is never directly God, because he does not challenge you to disobey him. Clearly this is the difference between the uses, as Abraham's "temptation" was from an internal source in response to God's command where as the other statement reminds that God does not ask one to disobey.

So long as different sources exist for impulses, different forms of temptation can occur to confuse definitions. There are all sorts of philosophical issues with this, of course, especially if God is omniscient, but they were never brought up.

3. Lot's arguments are weak, but within the weak morality of the Bible, they hold.

Next time, just use all the same statements and quote a passage that claims God is almighty. Then ask, "So why'd this happen?" Instant win.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Lex, DAT is arguing from the perspective that the Bible is inerrant and literally true (dunno if you read the forums regularly or not...)

>> "No M is not S; No F is S; No M is F"

That delivers "No man is completely faithful." Not "No man sins." They are completely different ends.

>> "G does not T1 people; G does T2 people."

That would be a wonderful way of putting it if they were actually that different. Here's another way of looking at it:

G -> X(a) = God does X such that A
G -> X(b) = God does X such that B
G -> Y(a) = God does Y such that A

Now in the verses, God still tempts Abraham (the actual Hebrew is "test", but DAT was apparently too lazy to look that up)... The fundamental concept is that God is sitting up in heaven seeing if Abraham will obey him. This can easily be seen as a temptation to break away from God, as that is what is being tested. Temptation, used in the context of the Bible (especially when Satan tempts God [yet another contradiction]), is almost always an impulse delivered so one will turn from God. In either event, (X or Y), the end (A) is still the same.

As for Lot... come on now... you know the gangrape and incest cop-outs are pretty weak.
Posted by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
Well, I'd reconsider things if I could recast. :)

"For there is no man who doesn't sin" and "whoever follows him doesn't sin" can be consistent if you state, as DAT did, that people are imperfect followers and therefore do not follow their faith well enough to not sin. The argument is that

No M is not S
No F is S
No M is F

M = man S = sinning F = completely faithful

In other words, everyone's faith is lacking.

As for the second argument, they are different understandings of temptation based upon understandings of purpose, which DAT brought up. It was a definitions challenge: DAT essentially argued that temptation has two meanings (1) to test and (2) to corrupt. You argued that the two meanings were essentially the same. DAT argued the differences. Because there was no definition of temptation defined within the Bible, and because Pro bears burden, the counter-interpretation is valid.

In essence

G does not T1 people
G does T2 people
T1 = tempt and allow to sin
T2 = tempt and prevent from sinning as a test

Finally, while it was incest, it wasn't initiated by Lot. They got him drunk and slept with him. It was akin to them date-raping him. Therefore it is questionable whether or not one can be just or unjust (commit incest or not) without volition.

You know I hate voting against this resolution, right? XD
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Good comments Lex, but I'm confused by one thing:

>> "proves that its worldview is not logically consistent with itself"

1 Kin 8:46 - "There is no man that sinneth not. '
1 Joh 3:6 - "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not. "

Jam 1:13 - "God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. '
Gen 22:1 - "God did tempt Abraham."

These two passages are directly contradictory. They can be shown as:

1) No M is non-S
2) Some M are non-S

1) All G are non-T
2) At least one G is T

The second one, especially shows an exceptional case of internal inconsistency in the Bible. Furthermore, given that one of your observations states that the Bible needs interpretation suggests that the interpretation is needed because of situations like the verses in this debate.

>> "Lot could not be just because a just person does not offer his own daughters for gang rape"

I also argued that Lot could not be just for committing incest with his daughters while drunk, which is very clearly a violation of God's law. And this happened after the destruction of the city, and after the angels had left. This is a completely different transgression.

I urge you to reconsider your vote.
Posted by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
...otes Con. That is to say, the full statement at the end should have been "I voted Con." Ran out of room.
Posted by Lexicaholic 5 years ago
Lexicaholic
This is the argument as I saw it:

Assertion: The Bible is an inconsistent document.

Definitions:
The Bible: Sacred scriptural text as per M-W http://www.merriam-webster.com...
inconsistent: : not compatible with another fact or claim b: containing incompatible elements c: incoherent or illogical in thought or actions : changeable d: not satisfiable by the same set of values for the unknowns http://www.merriam-webster.com... - suggests that the logic to be examined must occur within the same paradigm, not outside of it

Observation: The Bible posits a certain worldview (paradigm), and can not be argued to be inconsistent unless one stays within that paradigm and proves that its worldview is not logically consistent with itself, regardless whether or not '(in itself)' was intended to apply to the entire resolution. DAT actually pointed this out in the course of his argument.
Observation: The Bible is considered by theologians to require interpretation. Therefore, literary analysis of the Bible is acceptable in understanding its 'truths.'

While I agree with Pro's resolution, it is clear that he was debating outside the acceptable paradigm for proving inconsistency. He argued, for example, that Lot could not be just because a just person does not offer his own daughters for gang rape. He failed to recognize and respond to DAT's argument, however, which was that for Lot to provide the men his guests, he would have broken the law of hospitality and acted unjustly. Because the Bible internally clearly has nothing against the brokerage of women in agreements, using them as chattel, Lot was not acting unjustly within the Biblical worldview. Thus, Lot's attempt at substitution did amount to a clever solution, within the confines of the logic set. Similar arguments abound primarily because the debaters are not debating within the same parameters. Unfortunately, DAT chose the right parameters in which to debate this topic. Vot
Posted by mongeese 5 years ago
mongeese
Easy win? From here, it looked like an easy loss.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Clockwork 5 years ago
Clockwork
JustCallMeTarzanDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sorrylol 5 years ago
sorrylol
JustCallMeTarzanDATCMOTOTied
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 rougeagent21 5 years ago
rougeagent21
JustCallMeTarzanDATCMOTOTied
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 DashboardHeroJo 5 years ago
DashboardHeroJo
JustCallMeTarzanDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 5 years ago
studentathletechristian8
JustCallMeTarzanDATCMOTOTied
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 Tin_Man 5 years ago
Tin_Man
JustCallMeTarzanDATCMOTOTied
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 JBlake 5 years ago
JBlake
JustCallMeTarzanDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 5 years ago
s0m31john
JustCallMeTarzanDATCMOTOTied
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 JustCallMeTarzan 5 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
JustCallMeTarzanDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
JustCallMeTarzanDATCMOTOTied
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