The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
50 Points
The Contender
DATCMOTO
Con (against)
Losing
22 Points

The Bible is an Inconsistent Document

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 13 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/4/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,911 times Debate No: 6775
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (70)
Votes (13)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that the Bible is an inconsistent document, historically, scientifically, and logically (with itself) and is thus useless for discovery of truth. I submit as a premise to the resolution that any inconsistent document is by nature of its inconsistency useless when regarding truth value.

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

Historic Inconsistency

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. Furthermore, these Giants are also referenced AFTER the flood, and they are not taken aboard the ark.

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 when a natural dam (where Gibraltar is now) burst.

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."

Scientific Inconsistency

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.

Logical Inconsistency

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:"

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

Obviously the text is inconsistent. An inconsistent text can have no truth value on the subjects that it is inconsistent about. While portions of the Bible may have actual truth value concerning various aspects of science & history, much of the document is simply and blatantly incorrect. The internal inconsistency of the Bible simply adds to it's lack of truth value overall.

I submit that this document is inconsistent, has no truth value on certain subjects, and little truth value for anything else beyond religious matters. Even on religious matters, internal inconsistency renders the document suspect at best.
DATCMOTO

Con

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. Furthermore, these Giants are also referenced AFTER the flood, and they are not taken aboard the ark.

A:Noah and his family were giants.

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 when a natural dam (where Gibraltar is now) burst.

A:The evidence is all around you.. there was very little water on the earth before the flood and now IT'S STILL FLOODED.

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."

A:The deficit could not wield a sword but could obviously perform some other military function.

Scientific Inconsistency

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.

A:Most of the animals were very young or newly born so MUCH more room.

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.

A: I don't have an anwser to this, doesn't mean there isn't one! (Bible scholars, help?)

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.

A:Has any dust ever entered the mouth of a snake? Highly probable as they spend their lives crawling on the ground.

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.

A:These things along with weeds (tobacco, hemp etc) were caused when man sinned and all creation 'fell' away from God.

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.

A:Humans rarely live past 100 NOW.. The earth was oxygen rich, everything (including plants, lizards and men) was bigger and MUCH healthier.

Logical Inconsistency

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."

A:His bowels spilled out after his carcass was eventually cut down

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."

A:Christ said all these things. That different witnesses recall different pieces CONFIRMS the validity and shows it's not concocted.

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."

A:service/slavery

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. "

A: I know, strange isn't it?

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:"

A:The Law is perfect BUT man is sinful so the law only exposes his sin

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."
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 teache my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"

A: All these attribute exist simultaneously within God, Just because that is hard for us to understand doesn't make it false.
The old testament is God doing things our way (or at least the israelites way) so in a human society dominated by murder and war he picked sides and chose favourites. Such is His desire to have a relationship with us at ANY cost..
The new testament reveals the TRUE cost of a REAL relationship (heaven) with us.. THE CROSS.

The Bible is difficult but that doesn't mean we don't continue to wrestle with it. And the more i do the more alive it becomes.. it is the LIVING WORD OF GOD.. albeit transcribed by imperfect men.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Responses:

>> "A:Noah and his family were giants."

This is obviously false if you read Deuteronomy - Noah would have had to be both an Emim and an Anakim... but oops - God destroyed these races because they weren't in accord with Him.

>> "A:The evidence is all around you.. there was very little water on the earth before the flood and now IT'S STILL FLOODED."

This is also obviously false because many parts of the Middle East (and the rest of the world) are below sea level and if the whole world had flooded they would be under water still. Second, the Israelites crossed the Sinai Peninsula when leaving Egypt - the Sinai borders the larger oceans - if there was less water before the flood, they wouldn't have been able to part the Red Sea because it wouldn't have existed. Third, the Nile, Jordan, Tigris, and Euphrates pre-exist the flood. Clearly there was water in these places before the flood. This answer is laughable.

>> ":The deficit could not wield a sword but could obviously perform some other military function."

My opponent pretends that "fit for military service" and "capable of wielding a sword" are two different things. Those that serve in a military function that cannot fight are??? The answer is that they are either support personnel (that aren't really in the military anyway), or that they are incompetent at their jobs. Furthermore, the census takes into account MEN - support personnel would have been boys or women, not men "fit for military service."

>> "A:Most of the animals were very young or newly born so MUCH more room"

This still doesn't answer the inconsistency between 7:2, 7:9, and 6:19. In 6:19, God orders Noah to take every animal two-by-two. Then in 7:2, God tells Noah to take the clean ones by sevens and the unclean ones by twos. 7:9 states that they boarded the ark by twos. Even if they went by sevens, they could not have boarded by twos!!

Note that my opponent does nothing to address the genetic viability of the populations of the animals OR the fact that 8:20 states "And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar." Where did all the animals come from if Noah "took of every clean beast" and burned them as an offering to God???

>> "A: I don't have an anwser to this, doesn't mean there isn't one! (Bible scholars, help?)"

If you cannot reconcile this error in the bible, the resolution is fulfilled. There simply is no answer because hares do NOT chew their cud.

>> "A:Has any dust ever entered the mouth of a snake? Highly probable as they spend their lives crawling on the ground."

Again - laughable - the verse clearly states that the serpent shall EAT dust. Serpents to not EAT dust. Eat means to consume as food... Serpents do not EAT dirt.

>> "A:These things along with weeds (tobacco, hemp etc) were caused when man sinned and all creation 'fell' away from God."

Laughable - Somehow man's sin created new species of plant? Even though God 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" BEFORE MAN SINNED?

>> "A:Humans rarely live past 100 NOW.. The earth was oxygen rich, everything (including plants, lizards and men) was bigger and MUCH healthier."

Laughable - Then why was human life span in the Stone Age, Paleolithic, and Neolithic under 40 years?? Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason that the earth would have had a higher oxygen content in Biblical times.

>> "A:His bowels spilled out after his carcass was eventually cut down"

You have obviously not read the account of that field - there are six different propositions concerning it. Acts 1:18 & Mat 27:5-7 (Judas' Death) - The verses here state six different things:

1. The chief priests bought the field in question.
2. Judas bought the field in question.
3. Judas bought a field.
4. Judas threw down his money in the temple
5. Judas hanged himself.
6. Judas fell down and burst asunder.

Obviously these cannot all be correct. The 4th and the 2nd/3rd statements are in conflict, as are the 1st, and the 2nd/3rd.

>> "A:Christ said all these things. That different witnesses recall different pieces CONFIRMS the validity and shows it's not concocted."

First of all, none of the writers of the Gospels were AT the crucifixion. They were all written LONG after Jesus' death. Second, even if you believe that the Apostles were there, there was not one of the Twelve named Mark, yet some of the details from the crucifixion like what Jesus was given to drink appear in Mark's gospel. Third, you would think that the writings of Jesus' DEATH - one of the MOST IMPORTANT stories in the Bible - would all be almost identical. We have a problem compiling all the stories. Was he given a drink or not? What was he given to drink? Did he actually drink it? What were his last words? All four of these are presented in the various gospels. Consider:

1. Jesus is given something to drink (Mark, Matthew, John).
2. Jesus is not given something to drink (Luke).
3. Jesus is given wine and myrrh (Mark).
4. Jesus is given vinegar (John).
5. Jesus is given vinegar and gall (Matthew).
6. Jesus drinks on the cross (John).
7. Jesus refuses to drink (Mark).
8. Jesus' last words are "It is finished" (John).
9. Jesus' last words are "My God, why have you forsaken me" and a loud cry (Mark, Matthew).
10. Jesus' last words are "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" (Luke).

All of these cannot possibly be true. Clearly these cannot all be correct.

>> "A:service/slavery"

Exactly - God abhors oppression, yet commands slavery. This is inconsistent.

>> "A: I know, strange isn't it?"

Exactly - A man who would let his virginal daughters be raped and commits incest with them is righteous? This is inconsistent.

>> "A:The Law is perfect BUT man is sinful so the law only exposes his sin"

GOD wrote the covenant with man - NOT MAN. Thus, if there is something wrong with the covenant itself, the fault is with GOD not MAN.

>> "A: All these attribute exist simultaneously within God, Just because that is hard for us to understand doesn't make it false."

My opponent seems to be of the opinion that God can be (A & ~A). That's a logical contradiction - this is inconsistent.

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

My opponent has offered no counterargument on the subject of Slavery and Lot's Righteousness. Thus, I hold he has conceded these points and the resolution is fulfilled.

Furthermore, all his "refutations" of the existing points are quite laughable and lacking any modicum of logic.

I await more of this nonsense.

AFFIRMED.
DATCMOTO

Con

LET'S STOP SPLTTING HARES.

The reason why hares once chewed the cud but no longer do (The Bible is NEVER wrong, it's the inerrant Word of God.)
Is easily explained.. perhaps you are not familiar with the popular sciences but there is a fairly new theory banging around called Evolution. (Lowest form of wit? never!)
This gift from God, NAMELY the ability to adapt and change physiology to a new environment (for example after a vast global wide flood) has been twisted by those in the pay of the evil one to assert the ludicrous assumption that one 'kind' of animal can eventually, given enough (yawn) time, become another 'kind'. Obviously the exact point of deceit is, as always, classification.
For example some would wish to classify as such:
Horse - E. caballus - Equus Caballus
Donkey - E. asinus - Equus Asinus
Mule - E. caballus x asinus - Equus Mule
Mules are the offspring of a Horse and a Donkey -The reason they can still mate is because they are ALL the SAME KIND. They have a common ancestor, the first Horse!
So Hares used to chew the cud but have adapted to a new environment.

Noah: You'll have to give me more than a 'book' of the bible.. chapter & verse. REMEMBER the burden of proof is on YOU to prove the bible is an inconsistent document, I've easily refuted every argument. I'll indulge you somewhat but if I show that seemingly contradictory facts are cleared up by a simple explanation then you STILL have all your work ahead of you.

Flood: The Bible clearly states that the waters receded.. There's just a LOT more water that there used to be. How do you know what the world was like before (or just after) a flood you don't believe in?

Fit for military: But you cannot know that there is NOT this distinction. Its seems perfectly clear to me.

entering the ark: It means 7 males & 7 females.. 2+2+2+2+2+2+2=14! Genetic viability would only be a concern if there were no Sovereign God guiding His creation.

Dirt/serpents: I think most people would concede that anything entering somethings mouth whether willfully or not could be described as 'eating'.. UNLESS you were HELLBENT on disproving something you begin to fear TRUE.
"eat my dust" etc

Plant species: More likely they became poisonous only after the fall.. some animals also became carnivores then.

men's age: Men's age span has receded the further away from God we've wandered, Sin is a real killer! Certain institutions (hospitals, university's etc) all started by Christians have raised the standard of living and so the age span.
The Earth had a layer of water in the atmosphere which created an oxygen rich green house effect.

Judas: Your being so pedantic on these trifling points HURTS your case.. If Judas' money was used by the priests (they never would have 'owned' the money) then Judas, although dead, 'bought' the field.
The ONLY way anyone could fall down and 'burst' would be if the corpse were allowed to bloat.. like hanging from a tree?

JESUS: They CAN all be correct, As I said the differences PROVE the validity.. The narrative is no longer 'you shall & you should' But, 'this is what I saw..' mark interviewed the witnesses.
MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY is the resurrection of Christ, over 500 people saw Him at one time!
Tarzan, take the time to study the evidence, it is compelling. I recommend Lee Stobel's "The Case For Christ."

Lot: The Bible teaches that faith alone justifies, makes us righteous.

The Law: God's perfect Law, mans sinful failure to keep it.. ?

GOD: Lets get one thing straight, YOU do not judge God.. GOD JUDGES YOU.

CONCLUSION: My opponent has offered NO evidence biblically that the bible is in anyway inconsistent.. I have refuted his quibbles easily.
NOTE the fact that my opponent relys more and more on emotional terms such as 'laughable' etc and his tone becomes more shrill with every desperate attempt to keep God's Word from the door of his heart.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Responses:

>> "The reason why hares once chewed the cud but no longer do"

False - no member of order Lagomorpha has ever chewed its cud. In fact, I can't think of ANY rodents that do or ever have.

>> "Obviously the exact point of deceit is, as always, classification."

This makes me giggle. As though if we classified a hare as something else it would begin to chew its cud...

>> "The Bible is NEVER wrong, it's the inerrant Word of God."

False - the Bible holds that the value of Pi is 3.

>> "Mules are the offspring of a Horse and a Donkey -The reason they can still mate is because they are ALL the SAME KIND."

Mules and horses cannot mate. Neither can mules and donkeys. They are three distinct species.

>> "REMEMBER the burden of proof is on YOU to prove the bible is an inconsistent document, I've easily refuted every argument."

No - the burden is on YOU to show that the inconsistencies I've pointed out are not inconsistencies. You have refuted nothing - merely posted some quite humorous conjecture.

>> "The Bible clearly states that the waters receded.. There's just a LOT more water that there used to be. How do you know what the world was like before (or just after) a flood you don't believe in?"

You don't seem to understand - if the natural dam at Gibraltar burst, the Atlantic ocean would have poured in, flooding the middle east with a massive tidal wave and then receding into the Mediterranean basin. However, the Bible states that the entire earth flooded, and that it covered the highest mountains. This is quite clearly false. If the water receded, where did it recede TO??? Furthermore, the depth of the water (fifteen cubits) was not nearly enough to cover even medium-sized HILLS, much less the mountains the Bible states. The contradiction remains.

>> "But you cannot know that there is NOT this distinction. Its seems perfectly clear to me."

Fit for military service = capable of wielding a sword, does it not? Your "distinction" simply pretends that the census was conducted for two different reasons. If the reasons were different, why were not there two different numbers reported in the larger census?? Furthermore, the number of soldiers is RIDICULOUS - the US had 1.37 million active duty soldiers in 2001 - this purports that the Jews had almost 1.6 million soldiers (or at least 1.3) in BIBLICAL TIMES!!! That's almost certainly simply incorrect.

>> "Genetic viability would only be a concern if there were no Sovereign God guiding His creation."

I'll accept the 7+7 argument... but genetic viability? Even if God did guide creation, all animals of a certain type would all have the same DNA as the first two creatures, and they do not. Furthermore, my opponent did not address the fact that Noah sacrificed a lot of the animals after disembarking the ark. Did they just wait around to be burned??

>> "I think most people would concede that anything entering somethings mouth whether willfully or not could be described as 'eating'"

You sometimes get dirt in your mouth... do you EAT dirt? Obviously not. God could have simply said that the serpent will be cursed by TASTING dirt all the days of his life...

>> "More likely they became poisonous only after the fall.. some animals also became carnivores then."

Then why are the Hebrew names for some animals derived from carnivorous meanings?? For example: Lion is derived from "in the sense of violence"; Cormorant from "to throw, cast, hurl, fling"; Hawk from "unclean bird of prey"; Owl from "to wrong, do violence to"; Eagle from "to lacerate." Obviously there were carnivores before the fall of man. Furthermore, the sin of man has NOTHING TO DO AT ALL with whether or not a plant is poisonous!!!

>> "The Earth had a layer of water in the atmosphere which created an oxygen rich green house effect."

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!

>> "Men's age span has receded the further away from God we've wandered"

That's interesting, considering it was longer BEFORE organized religion came about... Educate yourself: (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

>> "If Judas' money was used by the priests (they never would have 'owned' the money) then Judas, although dead, 'bought' the field."

Did you not read Acts 1 or Matthew 27?? They are mutually exclusive. Either Judas bought the field, or the chief priests bought the field.

>> "The ONLY way anyone could fall down and 'burst' would be if the corpse were allowed to bloat.. like hanging from a tree?"

Or if they slashed their abdomen open.... "burst asunder" means that what was inside something gushed out - exactly like someone cutting open their abdomen.

>> "As I said the differences PROVE the validity.. "

Differences do not prove validity - they prove contradiction.

>> "The Bible teaches that faith alone justifies, makes us righteous.

Oh really?? Mat 16:27 - "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his WORKS."

>> "God's perfect Law, mans sinful failure to keep it.. "

Again - you do not understand at all. If God made a perfect covenant, he could just reinstate the SAME covenant - but he CHANGED it, showing that there was something wrong, something IMPERFECT with the first.

>> "YOU do not judge God.. GOD JUDGES YOU.

This makes me laugh - I can judge God all I want. In fact, I can judge God by his own law, which he routinely breaks throughout the old testament.

>> "My opponent has offered NO evidence biblically that the bible is in anyway inconsistent.. I have refuted his quibbles easily."

This is also laughable - Datcmoto has dropped half of the points I have made, and answered the rest of them with want basically amounts to "oh - trust in God." This is not any sort of meaningful argumentation.

>> "NOTE the fact that my opponent relys more and more on emotional terms such as 'laughable' etc and his tone becomes more shrill with every desperate attempt to keep God's Word from the door of his heart."

Again - I'm compelled to giggle. My opponent calls my points "desperate" while his own responses hinge on simply accepting God's power without any sort of intelligent inquiry. Who is really desperate?

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

My opponent has dropped many of the points I've made. He has not answered any of these inconsistencies with anything approaching a logical explanation.

This debate is clear.

AFFIRMED.
DATCMOTO

Con

Observers will note that most, if not all, of the fight has gone out of my opponent.

The debate is whether or not the Bible is inconsistent WITH ITSELF.. He has all but abandoned this proposition for ever more distant shores..

Hares: they never chewed their cud but they once swam in the sea and dragged themselves onto land right?
micro Evolution is NOT macro.

Pi is 3: Where?

Horses: Nothing to do with mating or 'species'. They are one kind.

Flood: the Atlantic ocean (as it is now) was created by the flood.. cubits were MUCH bigger then because people (like Noah) were giants. The water receded to where it is now.
ALSO if you do that most elementary of science experiments, namely take some soil and drop it in a jar of water, shake vigorously and allow to settle over night, we observe that as the different particles settle at different speeds (chalk, granite etc) it creates layers. This is exactly what we observe of the post flood geology. Today's godless 'scientists' will tell you that those layers were created over millions and(yaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn......) millions of years EVEN THOUGH petrified trees are found running through the layers.. sometimes whole forests of them.

Soldiers: "almost certainly" oops!

DNA: again, micro evolution.

Sacrifices: Noah was a pretty smart guy (God thought so!) so I'm guessing he kept the animals that were to be sacrificed in a cage or holding pen.

Snake: This question has revealed SO MUCH about your (and non believers in general) two dimensional thinking regarding our heavenly Father.
ON THE ONE HAND you expect God (or the Holy Spirit -same thing) to mercilessly prod Moses saying "NO! DONT SAY ATE DUST" and then on the other hand you say 'If there's a God why is there so much suffering etc'
No loving, responsible parent leaves a child to run wild without correction.. neither do they attempt to control everything they do and say. A loving parent guides, so that, eventually the child can 'stand on it's own two feet.' Exactly the same with our heavenly Father. He wants us to 'get it' ourselves.

layer of water: "Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were ABOVE the firmament; and it was so. " Genesis 1:7 NKJV
The Bible's consistent if nothing else!

lifespan: 'All things were made through Christ' so there is no 'before' religion, organised or not.

Judas: At least we are back to comparing the Bible with itself! Again, a simple figure of speech.. Judas' blood money bought the field.. Or do we say that when an elderly relative leaves us an inheritance that actually the lawyer left us the money? same thing.
Asunder means 'apart'.. burst apart sounds much more like the obvious, likely explanation. I wonder what the ratio is between suicides by hanging vs suicides by 'slashing their own abdomen.' throughout history I mean?

Righteousness: heavenly rewards for works have NOTHING to do with righteousness.. a fact that many Christians have not grasped. It's the difference between 'getting in' and 'what you get when you get there'.

LAW: I'm sorry my friend but it is you who do not understand. God knew right from the start that the Law could not be kept.. That is the purpose of the Law, to expose sin, to show the utter hopelessness of our situation. How did the thousands of years of the law and Judaic culture end? by killing God for blasphemy..
Read Romans 7&8 for Paul's awesome illumination of this difficult subject.

JUDEMENT: No, not 'you may not' judge God, You CANNOT begin to.

My opponent has failed to show conclusively that the Bible is any way inconsistent with itself. Instead he has relied increasingly on emotional responses rather than critical thought.
Debate Round No. 3
70 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dtclark2188 7 years ago
dtclark2188
No - we are to condemn the understanding that the bible is inerrant and valuable as anything besides a child's storybook

I don't know about you, but I'm not going to let my children read Song of Songs or various other lewd and violent portions of the Bible until they are old enough ;)
Posted by dtclark2188 7 years ago
dtclark2188
The biggest cause of genocide is socioeconomic problems."

False - the most common cause of genocide historically is religion.

I completely disagree with this sentiment. It is true that religion is often one of the ways in which a group identifies itself as an ethnicity, but that does not mean that religion is a "cause" of genocide. Take the Nigerian genocide, which, on the surface seems to be religiously motivated. However, if you look at the ethnic breakup of the country, you'll realize that the Ibos controlled the Niger Delta, which is where most of the money was located. The Ibos set up an ethnocracy (a democracy run dominated by a single ethnic group) and did not support the development or aid the northern and other fringe areas. This lack of balance in material wealth and government representation led to increased ethnic tensions, which eventually spilled over into ethnic violence.

The point is that religion is not a primary or secondary cause of genocide. Rather, religion happens to be one of the most common ways in which ethnic groups identify themselves. However, ethnic groups are not required to use religion to identify themselves, and they have also been subjected to genocide throughout history. Ex: Qing dynasty's genocide of the Dzungar Mongolians, 3rd Punic War, Khmer Rouge genocide, South African Bouer genocide, pretty much all of the frontier democracies genocides (racially and socioeconomically motivated), etc. The point is, genocide and ethnic cleansing does not require religion, and religion is rarely if ever a primary cause.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "The biggest cause of genocide is socioeconomic problems."

False - the most common cause of genocide historically is religion.

>> "Are we, then, to condemn the poet who uses figurative language that doesn't jive with scientific understanding?"

No - we are to condemn the understanding that the bible is inerrant and valuable as anything besides a child's storybook.

>> "They have derived a personal meaning from the stories, and the stories themselves are benchmarks of Western thought and culture."

This is correct, but you're missing the point. The point is that there are people who believe the bible is TRUE and LITERAL. These are the understandings that need to be discarded.

"Words like "god" and "allah" must go the way of "Apollo" and "baal" or they will unmake our world."

THAT is the problem.
Posted by dtclark2188 7 years ago
dtclark2188
How are we to derive any meaning from a book that calls a man who offers his virginal daughters to be raped "just," yet holds that nonbelievers are going to be punished for eternity regardless of their virtue? What sort of even metaphorical meaning can we get from a book that claims that rabbits chew their cud? That's simply false, and many Jews still won't eat rabbit, regardless of the fact that their belief is simply false.

I think you are cherry picking my friend. You are correct that the passages you point out are ridiculous. However, the story of Cain and Abel, the Story of Adam and Eve, the story of Exodus, these have all been reinvented by thousands of generations and endowed with more meaning than any scientific theory. Just look at all of the poets and pieces of literature that play on the themes that are presented in these stories. They have derived a personal meaning from the stories, and the stories themselves are benchmarks of Western thought and culture. I mean, if we are to discard of the Bible, then we ought also to discard with all myths, even though so much meaning can be derived from them. And if we discard of these texts, then we should discard Paradise Lost, Dante's Inferno, Oedipus, East of Eden, etc. I think, once again, that you are asking too much of the Bible. It does contain truths, and, with it, we share a common culture and history.

I've rambled a bit I know, but we can talk about this privately if you want to. I'll just get K on my side, and then I'll surely win ;)
Posted by dtclark2188 7 years ago
dtclark2188
Clark, it's not just a matter of consistency or contradiction either... religious texts are dangerous. What other things in life can move people to burn blasphemers alive? To fly planes into buildings? To practice genocide in the name of a being NOBODY HAS SEEN? Absent religion, this world would be a FAR better place.

There are many things that can move people towards genocide. The modern genocide is often concerned with ethnicity, but religion is usually only one factor that people identify with in their ethnicity. For example, in the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman-Turks, the Turks were not trying to exterminate all Christians everywhere, rather, their aim was to eliminate the Armenians within their borders. Another example of genocide where religion plays second fiddle would be the Rwandan genocide. In fact, it can be argued that this genocide had nothing to do with religion, and was completely secular. So to answer your question about what else can cause people to commit great atrocities, well, there is a vast list. The biggest cause of genocide is socioeconomic problems.

"But with proper context, like you say, it becomes apparent that it is not a contradiction at all. However, the contradictions present in the bible are contradictions against reality or contradictions where writers is describing the same event in vastly different ways."

Are we, then, to condemn the poet who uses figurative language that doesn't jive with scientific understanding? Would you really want to discard of the story of Adam and Eve simply because it puts forward primitive ideas about reality? I mean, Star Wars also is not consistent with reality, but it is literature (in its most basic sense) so we do not require it to meet the rigors of science.

Clark, this debate was about inconsistency, not contradiction...
A valid point, but I would argue that consistency ought not to be a required criterion of an anthology of any kind (and that is exactly what the Bible is)
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Clark, this debate was about inconsistency, not contradiction...

Furthermore, you are not presenting me with a contradiction. Sure, on its face it appears that you have:

1) The poet likes love.
2) The poet does not like love.

But with proper context, like you say, it becomes apparent that it is not a contradiction at all. However, the contradictions present in the bible are contradictions against reality or contradictions where writers is describing the same event in vastly different ways.

How are we to derive any meaning from a book that calls a man who offers his virginal daughters to be raped "just," yet holds that nonbelievers are going to be punished for eternity regardless of their virtue? What sort of even metaphorical meaning can we get from a book that claims that rabbits chew their cud? That's simply false, and many Jews still won't eat rabbit, regardless of the fact that their belief is simply false.

Clark, it's not just a matter of consistency or contradiction either... religious texts are dangerous. What other things in life can move people to burn blasphemers alive? To fly planes into buildings? To practice genocide in the name of a being NOBODY HAS SEEN? Absent religion, this world would be a FAR better place.
Posted by dtclark2188 7 years ago
dtclark2188
I think I have to disagree with you on this one Tarzan. Not based on the arguments presented, just in general. To claim that contradictory documents do not offer any insight into truth is a bit narrow minded in terms of how human beings actually are. Take for example a poet who, on the same day, writes a poem about how great love is and writes how terrible love is. Has the poet contradicted himself/herself? The answer is no because the poet is describing two very different moments in time, and the 'truth' of either claim is determined by the reader, not by some kind of external logical check. Certainly, if you are looking for literal truth in the Bible in the sense that it presents verified scientific theories, or provides metaphysical truth that is equally valid for everyone, then the Bible is going to be a disappointment. However, since the Bible was written by several authors who, on the whole, did not have very much contact with one another, it is asking too much of the Bible to provide a consistent argument for a metaphysical or scientific stance. However, if you look at the Bible in the same way you look at literature or poetry, you will find that it contains large amounts of truth for large amounts of people at different stages in their unique lives. Sorry buddy, but I think you should listen to your gf and give literature its fair shake at providing insight and truth into life.
Posted by DATCMOTO 7 years ago
DATCMOTO
The trinitarian nature of the soul (mind, emotion & will) usually leads to one or more of the components becoming dominant as a compensatory mechanism against spiritual death.
Hence we see 'intellectualism' and the formation of 'philosophies' as circular attempts to solve a problem that resides outside of the mind, and so out of reach.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Smooth, I wasn't talking to you about memory... I think you and I are on the same page on that... :)

As far as Schrodinger's Cat...

If you are a determinist, you would believe (as I do - I'm one too) that the cat is either alive or dead. Quantum events don't necessarily defy determinism however - we may simply lack the science to properly describe them... I say that it is a causal fallacy because it supposes that our observation by opening the box necessitates that the cat "become" alive or dead. It is already alive or dead, not in some sort of limbo. The causal fallacy is in the observation, not the setup.
Posted by mrsmooth27 7 years ago
mrsmooth27
I never said you said memory wasn't trustworthy.

...it's actually not. The experiment may represent a fallacy, but the point still remains. The fact that the life or death of the cat is based on a quantum events serves to amplify quantum theory and show that it is flawed. I am a determinist, so both quantum theory and Schrodinger's cat fly out the window for me, but I wanted to know what hypothesis you find most likely.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SunnySide 7 years ago
SunnySide
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 RagingCow 7 years ago
RagingCow
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 blaize 7 years ago
blaize
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:31 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 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 steelman 7 years ago
steelman
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by zach12 7 years ago
zach12
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:30 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 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 jjmd280 7 years ago
jjmd280
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 LoveyounoHomo 7 years ago
LoveyounoHomo
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 JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60