The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
9 Points

The Bible is full of contradictions.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,156 times Debate No: 49890
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (2)




I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. As such, it contains no errors or contradictions. It is the infallible word of God.

For this debate, the burden of proof is on my opponent. You present your evidence, and I will refute it. By refute, I mean that I will show how you are in error, or at least raise a reasonable doubt about said verse being a contradiction.

Four rounds: Acceptance, opening statement, rebuttals, closing argument.

Since the Bible is on trial here, it will be used as the sole reference material. No other source is revelant. We are not discussing historical accuracy, or even truth. We are simply looking at internal consistency. Please limit the discussion to that, and only that.


I accept the debate of my adversary, and agree with the rules, that we may only use the Bible to present the arguments, I also agree to the structure of the debate, and thank my opponent for making this debate, and hopefully I will prove in my next round that the Bible is truly contradicting.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge. Since I need something to refute, before I begin, I'll just post this for now. It is a list of guidelines for interpreting Scripture. I suggest that everyone pay attention to this, since it may affect how you vote. I will be using these, along with other tools, to debate my opponent. They won't fit here, so here is the link.



I will structure my arguments in 3 sections, one is OT contradictions and the second is the NT contradictions, the Third is contradictions between the OT & NT, I am going to use the NRSV Bible and I use Bible gateway and Bible hub for the Verses.

Old testament:
In Genesis 1:25-27 "25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind..."
and after animals "27 So God created humankind..."

But these verses above contradict the following Genesis 2:18-19 "18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”
So God created Man from before, then "19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air"

In Genesis 1:25-27 Animals were created Before Man, But in Genesis 2:18-19 says that Man were created before the Animals.

In Exodus 31:17 "... on the seventh day he rested..." God rested.

But this contradicts Isaiah 40:28 "...He does not faint or grow weary.." (weary: "Feeling or showing extreme tiredness" [1])

In Deuteronomy 25:5 "...Her husband’s brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage and performing the duty of a husband’s brother to her. "

But this contradicts Leviticus 20:21 "If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is impurity; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless."

In Exodus 20:5 "..punishing children for the iniquity of parents.."

This contradicts Ezekiel 18:20 "....A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child.."


New Testament:

In Mark 6:8-9 Jesus tells the disciples to " 8 He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; 9 but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics."

But this contradicts Matthew 10:9-10 "9 Take no gold, or silver, or copper in your belts, 10 no bag for your journey, or two tunics, or sandals, or a staff; for laborers deserve their food. "

In Matthew 5:1-2 Jesus goes up to the Mountain and preaches the first sermon "Then Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain..."(Refer to the whole of Matthew 5 for the Sermon).

But this contradicts Luke 6:17-20 "...He came down with them and stood on a level place.." Level place means "Plain"[2], Jesus preached the first sermon on a plain.(Refer to the verses after verse 20 for the whole Sermon).

In Matthew 1:16 "and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."

But this contradicts Luke 3:23 "Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli"

In Matthew 21:2-7 "they brought the donkey and the c.olt" two of the disciples brought Jesus a Donkey and a colt from the village of Bethphage.

But this contradicts Mark 11:2-7 "Then they brought the colt to Jesus" In these verses the two disciples only brought the Colt, but the verse above shows that they brought Donkey, and a Colt.

Matthew 1:17 " from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations."

But this contradicts Matthew 1:12-16 "And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah, Salathiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, Eliakim, Azor, Zadok, Achim, Eliud, Eleazar, Matthan, Jacob, Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah."
The list above shows only 13 not 14 Generations.


OT & NT contradictions:

In 1 Timothy 6:16 "It is he alone who has immortality dwells in unapproachable light" God dwells in Light.

But this contradicts 1 Kings 8:12 "The Lord has said that he would dwell in thick darkness."

In Matthew 19:26 "but for God all things are possible." God is Almighty.

But this contradicts Judges 1:19 "The Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain, because they had chariots of iron. "

The list goes on, but I've chosen some contradictions which fit best, I hope my adversary refutes my argument.
Debate Round No. 2


Genesis 1:1 says, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Later, in Genesis 2:4, it
seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a
common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not
disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes
the six days of creation (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation
week the sixth day and there is no contradiction.

In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first
chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point
of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.

There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant
life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the
creation of man no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet
sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground." So,
which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created
man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for vegetation" are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11 uses a
term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation
that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11
speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing farmable vegetation to grow
until after He created man.

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life
on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the
animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, Now
the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought
them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its
name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. The
text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man.
Rather, the text says, Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals. There is no contradiction.
On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing
the man to name the animals.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the
sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in
Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the
general to the specific.

You second question is a common misconception, and easily explained. There are two different lineages for
Christ because the Jews trace it through the father. Matthew recorded this to show the Jews that Christ was
the Messiah.

Joseph’s lineage was also given to show that Jesus was, in fact, born of a virgin. If Joseph had been Christ’s
natural father, then Christ could never have sat on the throne of David, because of a curse God placed on one
of Joseph’s ancestors.

This ancestor, Jechonias, is mentioned in Matthew 1:11-12. He is also referred to as Coniah in Jeremiah 22:24
-30. Verse 30 states, “Thus says the Lord, Write you this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his
days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.”
This man was so evil, that God cursed him and his descendants. Jeconiah (as his name is spelled in the Old
Testament) did go on to have children (I Chron. 3:17). But, this curse was fulfilled because none of his
children went on to rule from the throne of David.So how could Christ, a descendant of David, qualify to rule from the throne?

This is how Luke 3 complements the Matthew account. Luke records Mary’s genealogy. According to Jewish
tradition, in marriage, Mary’s genealogy was placed in her husband’s name. The Greek simply records that
Joseph was “of Heli” (Luke 3:23). But since Jacob was Joseph’s father (Matt. 1:16), Joseph was the son-in-law
of Heli.

Mary’s lineage did not have this curse as Joseph’s did. And Mary descended from Nathan—one of David’s sons!
(see Luke 3:31). God honored Nathan, and made him the ancestor to the promised King—Jesus Christ—who would sit
on David’s throne forever (Luke 1:31-33). This fulfills God’s promise of establishing David’s throne for

According to Israel’s law, if a daughter were the only heir to the father, she would inherit all his
possessions, inheritance and rights—but only if she married within her tribe (Num. 27:1-8; 36:6-8). Since Mary
had no brothers who could be heirs to her father, she was able to transmit David’s royal inheritance—and the
right to the throne—to her husband upon marriage. This made Joseph heir to Heli, giving him the right to
David’s throne. This inheritance was then passed to Christ.

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke were both recorded to show Christ’s right to the throne. Matthew’s account
showed that through Joseph’s genealogy, Christ was a legal descendant of Jeconiah (Coniah), but could not sit
on and rule from the throne because of the curse. This account also proved how Christ was born of a virgin
woman, because the curse would have passed onto Christ if Joseph were, in fact, His natural father. Of course,
Christ was really the Son of God—begotten by the Holy Spirit!

Your third question is answered here.

The terms "light" and "darkness" can both be used of God without being contradictory. They are are actually complimentary. Understanding their context is key, so let's look at the verses you mentioned.

In 1 Timothy 6:16, Paul speaks of God's unapproachability (Ex. 24:17; 34:35; Ps. 104:2). God is light (1 John 1:5; cf. John 1:4). Without special equipment we do not look directly into the light of the sun because it is too bright. As one of my former seminary professors stated, "We need it to see by, yet we cannot look into it, for it is too intensely brilliant." So in this sense, God dwells in unapproachable light. Also, a nuance of light being so brilliant is that it is then unsearchable - and so God seems "dark" to us (Rom. 11:33).

1 Kings 8:12 references Psalm 18:11 and 97:2 and speaks of God manifesting himself in the temple. 1 Kings 8:10 says, "the cloud filled the temple of the Lord." This imagery speaks of God's holy, divine presence. We have seen this imagery before. After leaving Egypt, God led his people through the desert. Exodus 13:21 says, "By day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night" (cf. Ex. 40:36-38). Then at Mount Sinai God revealed himself in a cloud (Ex. 19:9; 24:15-18). When the tabernacle was constructed, God covered it with the cloud of his glory (Ex. 40:34, 35; Lev. 16:2). This all speaks of God's presence! The use of such images of God in these ways was to instruct the people of that era - as it should be to us (Rom. 15:4). It should be understood that the visible revelation of God was sometimes in the context of a storm-like event (clouds, rain, thundering, darkness, etc.).

I couldn't fit a full and proper explanation for your third question. But I think you can get the sense of it. Your turn. Good luck.


I thank my adversary for his lengthy argument, but before I head swiftly into the rebuttal I have to say that my opponent cannot answer all of my contradictions as said in the comments, because of the limitions of the debate, his excuse that there is no space to refute my claims, but I hope he does in the next arguments, I urge the viewers to look at the comments for more details, now to the Rebuttal.

My adversary claims that after Genesis 2:4 God supposedly changes his mind and tells Moses about a new creation story, so Genesis 1 & 2 are different creation story's.
The topic is "The Bible is full of contradictions" Genesis 1 and 2:4 have different accounts of creation and these accounts contradict each other, I have never said in my previous argument that Genesis 1 & 2:4-onwards, describe the same creation event, the topic is whether the Bible contradict itself, and these 2 accounts of creation contradict themselves as shown in my previous argument.

"Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week the sixth day "
This is obviously wrong, since Genesis 2 speaks about the creation of Garden of Eden, Creation of Man, Creation of Animals and birds(and also he provides to source for this assertion) Genesis 1:24-31 describes how the sixth day went, but in the fifth day Genesis 1:21 says that God has created "So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind."
which is said in Genesis 2:19 " 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air"
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning when God createdthe heavens and the earth" Now lets see Genesis 2:4 "In the day that the LordGod made the earth and the heavens" Genesis 2:4-onwards, doesn't describe the sixth day.

", a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads"
I have used the NRSV which is revised by 32 scholars of the highest eminence and backed by 50 co-operating denominations, can you give me from which Version have you taken that translation from.

And then opponent further makes claims in Genesis 19 on how the Animals were created already when the verse actually says, "So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air.." this means he created Animals now if we look at verse 18 which he did not mention "18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”
Man was already created and further in verse 19 God according to the Bible creates Animals, which contradicts Genesis 1.

"This is how Luke 3 complements the Matthew account. Luke records Mary’s genealogy. According to Jewish
tradition, in marriage, Mary’s genealogy was placed in her husband’s name. The Greek simply records that
Joseph was “of Heli” (Luke 3:23). But since Jacob was Joseph’s father (Matt. 1:16), Joseph was the son-in-law
of Heli."
I wish my opponent provide sources for this claim about Jewish tradition.
(My adversary copies the whole second refutation of his from see below where some guy called "John W" gives the same answer as my opponent provided above)
and further Numbers 27:1-8 and 36:6-8 never claim that the heir should transmit the royal inheritance nor right to throne(to the husband), as my adversary claims above, Mary gets the inheritance and must marry member of the tribe according to the verses but it never says that the inheritance goes to the husband afterwards, please don't put your words into the Bible.

And then my adversary talks about light and darkness(Which all of it was copied from this site: you should have given the sources.

"1 Kings 8:12 references Psalm 18:11 and 97:2 and speaks of God manifesting himself in the temple."
This is untrue because Psalm 97:2 "Clouds and thick darkness are all around him;
I urge my opponent to answer all my claims with his own words and summarize things best as possible if he cannot do it in 8k Characters.

Debate Round No. 3


I'm conceding this debate. It was flawed from the beginning. In the first place, I started one round down. My opponent should have went first, since he should be stating the supposed contradictions, at the beginning of the debate, for me to dubunk. This was my fault.

This was my first structured debate. My only previous experience in debating is sites like sodahead. Yeah. I know. An opinion site. I've learned quite a bit from this, despite a disastrous showing, and it has proven useful in another debate I have going on right now.

In case you missed it, in the comment section, I suffer from Multiple Sclerosis. I'm on this site because my Neurologists believes it will help me with some cognitive issues I've been having. You have to use your brain or lose it, just like your muscles. It's really difficult for me to concentrate and maintain focus on what I'm doing, and this is supposed to help out. We'll see.

I would like to thank Pro for his participation in this debate, and look forward to a rematch someday. I'll get better at this. I could hardly get worse, now, could I? LOL.



My friend conceded and was unprepared because of inexperience, I thank him for this debate, and hope for him the best of the luck in the future.
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
I'm happy LittleBallofHATE is losing.
Posted by LittleBallofHATE 2 years ago
I'm guessing that, sometime in the future, people will look at Obama's presidency and think it's a metaphor. Because it would bear no resemblance to any other presidency. They'll think that no one would be stupid enough to vote for him, let alone reelect him. ^_^
Posted by Nicoszon_the_Great 2 years ago
A lot of modern theologians are taking the second chapter of genesis as more of a metaphor rather than a literal historic account.
Posted by LittleBallofHATE 2 years ago
Why are people voting? I conceded the debate. Kinda pointless. Don't you think?
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
That's the problem: you're not debating at all.
You're plagiarizing other debaters out there.

You don't even know how to debate, which is why you should leave, if anybody should leave at all.
Posted by Valtin 2 years ago
Seems the last bit of my argument in the third round did not show the end where i wrote more, weird.
Posted by LittleBallofHATE 2 years ago
I'm not debating you. Take a hike.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
Oh, plagiarising now, too.
Well done, defender of the Bible.

You have done great harm to your belief with this conduct. Please look into your heart, confess what you have done, admit your guilt and concede the debate before you make your fellow Christians look like crooks.

You lost this debate already. I wish you the strength to save your integrity and dignity.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
Calling me "genius" and a "troll" will not get you anywhere.

YOU chose the topic, YOU set the number of characters, YOU didn't specify how many counter-examples were allowed: your arrogance has led you to believe you could defend the entire Bible in one 8000 character post.
Now you've got your wake-up-call, as your opponent has shown you the Bible is indeed full of contradictions.

You claimed the Bible contained none. Prove it.

You COULD have offered to extend your explanations to this comment section, but that's too late now.

I see no need to defend the Bible.
1: I'm not a Christian in the strict sense.
2: If the Bible is the word of God, he wants it to be that way, and I'll definitely not argue against him.
3: If, however, I consider the Bible to be a collection of parables and fables with helpful lessons for life - and lots of obsolete stuff in the Old Testament, because Jesus teaches another angle, which I prefer since revenge is below me: Why would I defend a man-made product? Humans are fallible. Naturally, if a book is written by multiple authors, some will make mistakes and contradict each other.
4: You made this bed, now go lie in it.
Posted by LittleBallofHATE 2 years ago
"I will await your response, but in my next round I will urge people to look at the comments, and the new rules set by Con."

You mean the rules we AGREED to. Don't you? Here it is, in case you forgot.

"Alright, since you have no ability to answer them all, because of the debate being limited, answer from the first section Genesis 1:25-27 and Genesis 2:18-19.
From the second section Matthew 1:16 & Luke 3:23.
And lastly from the third section, 1 Timothy 6:16 & 1 Kings 8:12."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded to what could have been a great and lengthy debate.
Vote Placed by Ozzyhead 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Besides the FF, I believe Pro had a better argument. I also believe pro used the more reliable sources, and also had better conduct in every round.