The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

The Bible morally contradicts itself

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 644 times Debate No: 60685
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




There are many practical flaws in our present day Christian bible. I believe that denying that there is no higher power is a hard idea to explain, and this is not my personal beliefs. However I find the belief of the actual historical accuracy of the bible as well as its many moral contradictions an even more far-fetched idea to find truth in. This debate will focus on the contradiction of free will. I'm not going to sit here and just post scripture the entire debate. if the need arises then I will. however I'm sure whoever is interested in accepting this debate will be well versed in the biblical stories that I refer to. I would like to refer to the story of Moses freeing his people from Egypt. before every plague is set into motion Moses first asked the pharaoh to let his people go, and every time it clearly states that the lord hardened pharaohs heart. now unless you can pull some sort of translation mix up to light with the phrase "hardened pharaohs heart" the only logical interpretation of it would be that the lord made the pharaoh insensitive to the proposal of freeing the slaves, and by doing so the lord took away the pharaohs free will. the lord continued to influence the pharaohs decision making until finally all the Egyptians first born sons lives were forfeited. the all knowing god influenced the pharaohs decision making knowing that it would end in the loss of innocent life that had nothing to do with the fate of Moses' people. the main point is that god directly interfered with a human interaction, and by doing so contradicts the notion of free will.


The account which says that God's hardened Pharaoh's heart doesn't say he did so by interfering with Pharaoh's free will, it was Pro who made this assumption, but that's nowhere in the text. The wider context shows that by humiliating the gods of Egypt, showing that Yahweh was more powerful than Pharaoh, his magicians and their gods, Pharaoh was embittered rather than repentant. They are people like that in the world today, who do not allow the truth to affect them positively. For example, by telling some people when they are wrong, they hate you. While your action of trying to correct them should have enlightened them, they choose to resent you for it. In this way, your actions have driven them further away from you even though you were just trying to correct them. By humiliating Pharaoh at every turn, God pushed him further away from him, making him even more determined to rebel.

This is just a matter of psychology, it has nothing to do with taking away someone's free will. Since God orchestrated the events (the means) by which Pharaoh would continue to rebel, it could be said that he hardened Pharaoh's heart. Take for example a drunk driver who kills a man's wife, resulting in this man's out of control anger leading him to becoming a bitter person, maybe even a murder - he may exact revenge on the driver. Now it could truthfully be said that that driver turned him into a monster by killing his wife. It could honestly be said that this driver made him bitter by taking away the love of his life. It could be reasonably said that this driver hardened this man's heart. And anyone who says this cannot be said, is just denying the customary way we use language today. The fact is that you don't have to take away a person's free will to influence their decision's either positively or negatively. Surely, killing Pharaoh's firstborn son would not making love Yahweh. It could make him hate him. In this way again, it could be said that God hardened his heart. And yet, he had free will. Pharaoh didn't have to respond that way. King David of Israel also lost a son as a punishment from God, and yet he did not stop loving God, but humbled himself and responding positively even to this punishment. As we all know, Job believed it was God who was punishing him, and yet he choose to be loyal to God. So none of this shows that God had to take away Pharaoh's free will to harden his heart. There are many ways to harden a heart without taking away free will.

My own heart is hardened at times by the things I go through, but this doesn't take away my free will. We all have a choice, how we will respond to events, so did Pharaoh. God simply facilitated the process by which Pharaoh's heart was hardened. After all, other verses tell us that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. (Exo 8:15, 32) The events God arranged were a driving force behind Pharaoh hardening his heart, but it was still Pharaoh's choice. He could have chosen to respond differently, but he didn't.

So I don't see that Pro has shown any logical contradiction, and is merely trying to have an extremely literal and rigid interpretation of God's hardening Pharaoh's heart, not allowing the Bible writers to utilize the many forms of expression and literary devices so common in most other writings.
Debate Round No. 1


the con makes a perfectly sound argument towards the idea that we as individuals have the ability to make our own choices, and i completely agree with him.... if we were talking about the interactions between two humans. The god spoke of in the bible is said to be "all knowing", this puts an unfortunate flaw in your logic towards this situation. An all knowing god knows us before we are born, he knows our past, and he knows our future. The fact that god possess this ability means that he knew what was going to happen when he decided to harden the Pharaohs heart. it also means that he knew what would happen if he didn't. if god just sat back and watched Moses attempt to free his people without any aid from himself, then that situation is still subject to human free will, but the moment that a divine power stepped in and had any hand in the influences put on Pharaoh means that the influences upon the Pharaoh were necessary for the outcome that the all knowing god desired. if god was still to get the glory out of the situation without having to lift a finger (so to speak) there would have been no reason for his presence in the proposal for the slaves freedom. With the realization of what "all knowing" truly means, your previous statement begins to contradict itself. When you said "By humiliating Pharaoh at every turn, God pushed him further away from him, making him even more determined to rebel" you presented a situation in which god had direct influence on the Pharaohs emotions or "heart", all the while having full knowledge of what was to come of his influence, no matter how small. When you stated that "The wider context shows that by humiliating the gods of Egypt, showing that Yahweh was more powerful than Pharaoh, his magicians and their gods, Pharaoh was embittered rather than repentant" you presented us with the reason for all the plagues and innocent death and suffering (i must remind you that it was not only Pharaohs first born son that perished, but all the Egyptian first born regardless of age that lost there lives). So i know that you agree that the god spoke of in the christian bible is truly all knowing, so you must also agree that he knew what the outcome of his choice to interfere would have been before it happened thus creating his own pre-destiny. likewise you must also agree that he knew what the result of him not interfering would be. And wouldn't you know it, god got all the glory at the end of the day (even if it came through a great deal of innocent pain/suffering), but i digress. When you say "Since God orchestrated the events (the means) by which Pharaoh would continue to rebel, it could be said that he hardened Pharaoh's heart" you admit to god directly pinpointed an individual (keep in mind "all knowing") for a specific purpose. This means that if the Pharaohs heart was left unhardened god would not get the outcome he desired in this situation, and whatever decision he would have made if left un-"hardened" was not the one he ended up making . which means that god knew that unless Pharaohs heart was hardened he would not have the reasons to put his power on display. God controlled the Pharaohs emotions which he knew ("all knowing") would result in him denying Moses his people, thus taking the true free will of the Pharaoh away.


Pro completely ignored the fact that Pharaoh was said in the account to harden his own heart, so Yahweh was not FORCING Pharaoh to act the way he did, he was merely facilitating feelings that were already there.

Secondly, just because God knows in advance how Pharaoh would respond to the plagues, deaths, etc, does not mean he removed Pharaoh's free will, or that he is even to blame for how Pharaoh responded. For example. A parent knows that their son hates being lectured to about gangs and drugs, and whenever spoken to about it, he gets angry, takes a smoke and gets high, goes out with his gang and breaks the law. Now, if his mother were to warn him just one more time about his behavior, about what doing drugs and hanging with gangs could lead to, he would go do these terrible things. Is it his mother's fault? No. She didn't force him to do it. He chose how he would respond, and she knowing how he would respond in advance still doesn't make her responsible for his actions. The same is true about God. God knows that sometimes, when he tells us don't lie, we will. So should he refuse to tell us don't like just because he knows we will lie anyway? God knew Pharaoh wouldn't let his people go when he sent Moses to ask him at first, so how does that make God the bad guy here? Yes, God knew when Pharaoh got humbled by the plagues, it would just make him more enraged, so what? Just because Pharaoh didn't learn from what should have been a valuable lesson to him, doesn't mean God is to blame for what he FREELY choose to do!

Thirdly, as for killing innocent people, says who the Egyptians were innocent? They kept the Hebrews in hard slavery for many years. And God, who, if he exists is surely omniscient (at least for the purposes of this debate) therefore knows what sins the Egyptians were guilty of, and has a right to punish them.

Fourthly, as for the children, Pro would have to show that killing children in one part of the Bible, contradicts, not his own view of morality, nor any modernist view of morality, but some other part of the Bible. This debate is about weather Bible morality contradicts itself. Now BOTH the Old and New Testament teach that we are ALL born in sin, shaped in iniquity, an as such don't even deserve to live. The ENTIRE Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death for all of us, and none of us can earn eternal life. So God has reserved the right to kill anyone at anytime who has not been forgiven of sin and converted to his righteous ways. (Psalm 51:5; Eph 2:12) Rom 5:12-14 shows that we all inherited death from our ancestors, and it was God who pronounced this curse on mankind. (Gen 3:17-19; 2:17) Even in Jude we don't see any apologies from God about destroying Sodom and the cities about it, so the entire Bible unanimously agrees on God's right to carry out the death penalty, even on infants. They have done nothing to deserve life. Scripture teaches we are all born deserving of death. Unless Pro can show from Scripture, those children in Egypt had a right to live, he can't show the Bible's morality contradicts itself.

I would further add, that being God, he is able to fully compensate those children if he so pleased in the afterlife, but this is simply irrelevant at this point. Pro needs to show where the Bible contradicts itself. So far he has not done so. All he has done is try to compare what Scripture says about how God death with Pharaoh with his idea of moral values, but he has not shown where the Bible even teaches the particular morality he is holding to. He hasn't shown where the Bible says "God has no right to kill people who are INNOCENT," then show us where the Bible says "the Egyptians were INNOCENT." He merely assumes they were, when Scriptures describes them as anything but innocent.

Pro also fails to show how God knowing that a person will react badly to his interference proves that by interfering, it becomes his fault that they acted badly. If a police was fairly certain that when he tried to arrest a thief the man would pull a gun and try to kill people, would the officer be wrong for trying to arrest him? No! Knowing in advance what Pharaoh would do doesn't make God the bag guy when Pharaoh refuses to let the people go.

Pro assumes all the bad stuff like the death of the Egyptian firstborns and so on would not have happened if God has simply NOT INTERVENED. First of all, he doesn't know this. He isn't Lord of time. He has no crystal ball to look into possible futures to see what might have been. This is speculation. God wanted to destroy the Israelites, but Moses pleaded their case and God spared them. (Exo 32:9-14) But the whole generation God wanted to destroy died in the wilderness due to their lack of faith anyway. It all ended up the same. (Num 14:33) The firstborns of the Egyptians may still have died in some other fashion even if God had not intervened on this occasion to get Israel out of slavery. We just don't know.

But even if they would not have died, how does this contradict the rest of the Bible? Does the rest of the Bible say that God was obligated to leave the heathen Egyptians alone? Does the rest of the Bible describe Egyptian society as a morally upright, God-rearing, INNOCENT nation? Scripture says NO ONE IS INNOCENT unless they are covered by the blood of Christ. I challenge Pro now, to show me where Scripture says different. Please see Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:10-11; 3:23.
Debate Round No. 2


The con has clearly missed the mark on some of my major arguing points. i take responsibility for this, because i failed to make them as clear as a could. i would also encourage the con to cease his analogies involving human to human interactions because they do not bear with them the same wieght as a divine power to human interaction, thus they hold no purpose in comparing. likewise these lengthy comparisons make it difficult to clearly identify the cons anchor arguments. additionally the need has arisen for me to quote scripture, because the con has either misread or is plainly twisting the scriptures referring to hardening the pharaohs heart to better suit his agenda. side note becoming innocent by being covered in the blood of christ does not apply to the old testament, because there wasnt even a jesus christ yet. this shows flaw in cons understanding of the bible.

the con opened up by stating that the Pharaoh hardened his own heart. this is actually true up until right after the sixth plague (being boils) was carried out at this point the bible stops saying pharaoh hardened his heart and changes it to what is said in Exodus 9:12 "And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.", the Gods word translation, and the Darby bible translation replace the word harden and state that god made Pharaohs heart stubborn. This proves that god does in fact hold responsibility for hardening the pharaohs heart at points during moses' time in egypt. later on in Exodus 10:1 the lord does it agian "And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:". next came the locust, but this time pharaoh admits to sinning against the lord (Exodus 10:16) and asked for forgiveness (Exodus 10:17). the locust were cast out and yet again in Exodus 10:20 "But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go." next darkness came for three days (Exodus 10:22), pharaoh then called for moses and said he could leave with his people, but not the flocks and herds. moses said he must have them for burnt offerings (Exodus 10:24-26) and yet again in Exodus 10:27 "But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.". then the plague of the first born is presented Exodus 11:5"And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.".in Exodus 11:10 moses and aaron perform wonders before pharaoh, and again the lord hardens pharaohs heart. then the lord introduces passover. up until after the sixth plague pharaoh was responsible for hardening his own heart as is stated. however after that it is said that the lord hardened pharaohs heart. god did so because he wished to continue his wonders Exodus 11:9 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt."

an all knowing god knows what the future holds, and thus knows the outcome of all things he does or doesnt do before they happen. god knows that pharaoh in the end would still change his mind and try to capture the slaves he lets go on his own unfluenced accord, but nothing god does is without purpose assuming he truly does know the future. god had all the plagues already planned out before pharaoh made any decisions at all, because the last plague sets the stage for the tradition of passover. god knew he would have to harden the heart of pharaoh in order to complete all of his wonders, and says he plans to harden his heart before moses enters into egypt Exodus 4:21 " And the LORD said unto Moses, When you go to return into Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh, whom I have put in your hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go." this alone shows gods pre-determained intent to guide pharaohs decisions, and by doing so god takes away the pharaohs free will. by no means am i defending pharaoh as a man who would have changed for the better if given the chance, but i am saying that god made him stubborn towards releasing the slaves after the sixth plague/wonder, and through the conclusion of the plagues. had god not hardened pharaohs heart there is no telling what the pharaoh exactly would have done, but what can be said is that whatever decisions he would have made would not have allowed for the compleation of the plauges and the introduction of the passover. if you say god had no affect on pharaohs decisions by hardening his heart, then you are also saying that god does things for no reason because pharaoh would have refused to let the people go until the death of the egyptian first borns regaurdless of weather or not god hardened his heart.

As for the death of the innocent first borns. i would like to note that i do not require proving that any egyptians were innocent to win the debate, because this doesnt apply to the free will of pharaoh. through every plague pharaohs people suffered the repercussions of pharaohs true free will decisions up untill after the sixth plague. everything suffered after that was a result of gods pre-destined plan. all egyptians could have truley been evil/corrupt and it can only be viewed as assumption otherwise, because the scripture fails to mention the egyptian publics reactions to the wonders/plagues of god, but the old testament does allow for forgivness. the proceedings for forgivness of sin in the old testament was sacraficing a burnt offering. it is said that if a person unknowingly sins they are able to repent via burnt offering. the people of egypt were unknowing that there gods were false. when moses performed the plagues/wonders it can be assumed that atleast some of the egyptian public realized that moses god was the real god, because even pharaoh acknowleges that he has sinned against god and asked for forgivness. pharaohs fate was already sealed though, because god knew that once the slaves were gone pharaoh would attempt to reenslave them of his own free will. the same cannot be said about the rest of the egyptians, but the possibility of forgivness was not granted to the egyptian public. there fate was tied to there pharaoh. this means that once god began hardening the pharaohs heart the egyptian public was destined to suffer the plagues regaurdless of the state of there heart. assuming there was an egyptian family intent on following moses god they still lost there first born son because only the israelite public was given the passover instructions. the passover was simply about showing that the lord made a destinction between egypt and israel, and had nothing to do with only killing the corrupt or even soley the egyptians. the victems of the final plague also included the first born of a slave girl just because she grinds flour for the egyptians. the contradiction here was that forgivness is granted to the unknowing, yet even if egyptians sacraficed and repented as required they were still subject to the final plague.

i have provided con with the scriptures required to support my claim that pharaohs free will was tampered with during the course of the plagues. in addition i have provided con with the reasons why the killing of the first born sons had nothing to do with killing the innocent or guilty, and by doing so have displayed that the innocent were also subject to the lose of there first born.


This debate is not about showing a contradiction between the Bible and Con"s logic, so even if Con could show it would be illogical to compare God to a human in an illustration, that wouldn"t show a contradiction in the Bible. He would have to show that one part of the Bible is against comparing God to a human and another part is in favor of it. The fact is that human relationships are used all over the Bible to illustrate what God is like, such as in Matthew 18:21-35 where God is compared to a merciful king.

Pro accuses me of "misreading" or "twisting" the Bible without having first shown from the context of the passages in question that his interpretation of it is correct. His idea of God hardening Pharaoh"s heart involves taking away Pharaoh"s free will. He has not shown that this has ever been the Jewish or Christian interpretation over the last few thousand years, but somehow wants us to believe his interpretation of what the text means is correct. He makes me wonder if he ever personally knew the author!

Pro says that "becoming innocent by being covered in the blood of christ does not apply to the old testament, because there wasnt even a jesus christ yet. this shows flaw in cons understanding of the bible." So does Pro think he understands the Bible any better than Jews living in the first century who were around when Jesus walked the earth? They were the ones who believed, based on the Old Testament, that Christ would fulfill prophecy by coming and saving them from their sins. Paul was a Jew. He says he was "circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee." (Philippians 3:5) Yet he says "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed." (1 Corinthians 3:5) When he wrote this, the OT was still the Bible from which Jewish Christians like himself got their teachings, for the New Testament canon was not complete. Paul is saying that Christ fulfills what the Passover lamb symbolized. He also says the blood of bulls and goats couldn"t take away sins, it was faith in what they represented that took away sins " faith in the coming Messiah. In Hebrews 10:1-22 he draws his entire argument from the OT. It was this very Old Testament which said that the child who would be born would be God himself. (Isaiah 9:6) John, a Jew, upon seeing Jesus, calls him the Lam of God that takes away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) So its Pro who doesn"t know his Bible. When God said "Let us make man," (Gen 1:26) it is shown that this was the Father talking to his Son, Jesus. (John 1:1-3, 14) According to John 12:37-43 refers to the vision of Isaiah 6 where the prophet sees Yahweh/Jehovah God, and says "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus" glory and spoke about him." So the Jehovah of the OT is Jesus in the NT. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 says it was Christ who went with Israel in their journey, so Christ is just as much an OT figure as in the NT. This is why Genesis 19:24 mentions two Jehovah"s, because one of them is the pre-incarnate Son. "Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven." (ASV) So Pro is ignoring the OT role of Christ in order to make a contradiction appear, but this is based on his lack of understanding the Bible.

This is why all those animal sacrifices were offered, because the blood pointed to a greater blood sacrifice that would do what the blood of animals couldn"t truly do " clean from sin. All the OT saints were saved by their faith in Christ, the promised seed of OT Bible prophecy (Gen 3:15; Gal 3:16), so Pro is simply incorrect. Jesus Christ was already in the Old Testament, just under different names, because he was still in spirit form and had not yet been incarnated into a human body. (Micah 2:5; Matt 2:1-6)

Pro doesn"t get that God is able to harden someone"s heart without taking away their free will. I have already explained how God was responsible for Pharaoh"s heart being hardened because the miracles he was performing, and the very request that he free his slaves, was insulting to the king who thought of himself as a god. It only made him more upset and stubborn, but how does this show his free will was taken away?

Pro says "this alone shows gods pre-determained intent to guide pharaohs decisions, and by doing so god takes away the pharaohs free will."

So have you ever had a guide, Pro? Someone guided you through school. Someone raised you and influenced, guided, your thoughts, decisions, behavior. We are all influenced in some way by someone. Does that take away our free will? No! Yes, God made Pharaoh"s heart obstinate, but Pro is ASSUMING WITHOUT PROOF that he did it BY TAKING AWAY PHARAOH"s FREE WILL. Where does the Bible say that God took away his free will? It doesn"t! That"s just Pro"s interpretation. God can use events that will motivate people to make bad choices, but they only make those bad choices because they were already evil to begin with, and God doesn"t owe them anymore enlightenment than he already gave them. God knows the heart, and maybe Pharaoh would never have converted willingly to God"s ways no matter what. Some people just love their own way. But using plagues, or even unnamed events in Pharaoh"s life that make his heart more stubborn doesn"t show his free will has been taken away, it simply shows that God influenced how Pharaoh used his free will! God didn"t have to make the decisions for him!

Is there even a part of the Bible that says God DOESN"T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE AWAY A PERSON"S FREE WILL? I know of no such verse, and I ask Pro to provide it. God didn"t give the trees and bacteria free will. He is under no obligation, according to Scripture, to create people and things in a way we would like. Scripture says,

""Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but otsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, "What are you making?" Does your work say, "The potter has no hands"? Woe to the one who says to a father, "What have you begotten?" or to a mother, "What have you brought to birth?" "This is what the LORD says" the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands?" (Isa 45:9-11; also Rom 9:17-21)

Point: both Old and New Testament teach that God has the right to do as he pleases, and unless Pro shows the verse that says he doesn"t have this right, he has lost this debate. The Bible doesn"t teach that God is even obligated to give us free will. He could make us like the trees if he wants too. So even if Pro could show that God took away Pharaoh"s free will, he would have to show that some other Bible verse says that God doesn"t have the right to do this in order to show a contradiction in the Bible.

Pro says "the proceedings for forgivness of sin in the old testament was sacraficing a burnt offering. it is said that if a person unknowingly sins they are able to repent via burnt offering."

Wrong again. This was part of the law of Moses, which was given only to the Israelites. Gentiles like the Egyptians were not under this law and could not benefit from it without becoming proselytes, converts to the Jewish faith. (Ps 147:19-20; Deu 5:1-2; Amos 3:2)

Actually, many Egyptians left Egypt with Israel. (Exo 12:38) These people joined themselves to the God of Israel. If an Egyptian were to repent and convert, he would then become a proselyte to the Jewish faith, and would no longer be counted as an Egyptian, so I doubt such persons would have experienced the plagues. But even if they did, which part of the Bible does it contradict? Does the Bible ever say that God owes us forgiveness? If the Egyptians had repented, would that take away God's right to send the plagues? Genesis 8:21 and Jeremiah 17:9 say the heart of all men is bad from youth up. The wages of sin if death. (Rom 6:23) God has the right to punish sin.
Debate Round No. 3


speechlessspeaker forfeited this round.


In summary so far, Pro has argued that (1) God took away Pharaoh's free will, but has not shown any part of the Bible that says God cannot, or does not have the right, to do this. Therefore, he has not shown a contradiction in the Bible morality. He needs to show it is immoral, not from HIS point of view, to take away Pharaoh's free will, but must show its immoral according to some part of the BIBLE to do so.

Pro argued that (2) the only way God could get Pharaoh's heart hardened, was to take away his free will. This is an ASSUMPTION. The Bible doesn't say this. It's just how Pro interprets the passage, but the passage is open to interpretation by scholars who would disagree with him. No Bible verse concretely says that God ever took away someone's free will.

Pro has argued that (3) it was unfair for God to punish the Egyptians based on Pharaoh's decisions, but has not shown that any part of the Bible that contradicts the fact that God had the right to punish them.

Finally, all the contradiction's Pro brings up are between the Bible, and his own version of morality, not between morality in one part of the Bible versus a different morality in another part of the Bible.

Pro needs need to show the verse of scripture that gives one morality, then the verse which gives a morality that contradicts it. Only in this way can he truly show there is a contradiction in Bible morality. He hasn't done so, and if he attempts to do so, I will show that he has taken the verses out of context, and doesn't understand them. When properly understood, no verse in the Bible contradicts any other verse, as far as they are translated correctly.
Debate Round No. 4


free will in the bible

Leviticus 22:18-Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering;

Joshua 24:14-15-"Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

these scriptures show that all men are to have free will, in serving the lord, as well as choosing to follow something not of the lord.

since the hardening of pharaohs heart was what drove pharaoh to deny the slaves freedom it makes it very important that it is his choice to harden his heart. if it at any point it was not his choice to harden his heart then pharaohs free will to make the choice to keep the slaves, or not to keep the slaves was manipulated. I have provided the con with the scriptures that show not only gods intent to harden the pharaohs heart, but also the exact scriptures that say that the lord did it on several occasions. the con fails to bring to light any scripture that says the Egyptians had not right to free will, and simply depends on denial and deflection to argue his point.

in closing, pharaoh was presented with the choice to set the slaves free, or to deny them freedom. through the first six plagues pharaoh hardened his own heart, however after the sixth and through the conclusion of the plagues the lord plays a direct role in hardening the pharaohs heart as he said he would do before Moses entered into Egypt. in doing this the lord manipulates the pharaohs free will so that the slaves would stay in Egypt longer and the lord could multiply his wonders in Egypt (I have provided the scripture that says exactly this as well).

denial is not a valid argument. deflection is not a valid argument, and failing to find scripture that can provide an applicable argument to the story of Moses and the pharaoh is not a valid argument.

all quoted scriptures are from the King James Bible


daley forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by daley 3 years ago
i apologize for the forfeit but i was in the hospital. i was very ill.
Posted by AlexanderOc 3 years ago
Ugh, giant blurbs of words. No offense debaters but try organizing your arguments better, it's hard to tell where's what. Use things like headers and bold to outline important details and such. Makes the debate much more pleasing to read.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 3 years ago
Maybe so, but so what? Contradictions don't prove that it's all false. You ought to check out the Historic evidence supporting the Bible found by Archeologists, etc.
No "higher power" , in that sense, exists.
It can be easily proved that the guy who apparently claimed that his name was pronounced Yahweh couldn't have been a REAL God, at all. He was doing things thousands of years ago that a REAL God would never have done. (See, for example, Numbers 16. ) The fact that people are creative & have free will proves that we can't be creations. If we didn't have free will, we couldn't ask whether or not we have free will. It may be Impossible to prove that a Creator exists, but it's very easy to prove that a Creator cannot not exist. If no Creator existed, we wouldn't be here. My name wasn't Jesus- I had a Hebrew name, pronounced Yeshua. The 3rd nail proves that I couldn't have been on that cross, so I couldn't have been miraculously, supernaturally, resurrected from the dead.
It's good to be back & awake again ...
Posted by WileyC1949 3 years ago
Of course it does.... the OT is the story of one people's GROWTH in faith and understanding of God. It begins with a very primitive notion of God, but the later books have far more depth of understanding. Even in Paul's writings you can see the same sort of growth. To see the growth more clearly read the books in the order in which they were written rather than the order which they are included in the Bible.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: All pro showed was that sometimes God steps in and predestined something. How is that a contradiction? We still NORMALLY have free will.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides forfeited, so neither gets conduct. As to arguments, I just didn't find Con's response compelling. The passage in question clearly says that God hardened Pharaoh's heart--when he analogizes things he reads, he doesnt' say "Those things harden my heart", even HE says "my heart is hardened"--there is a difference between a passive and active voice, and it's quite clear here. God hardened Pharaoh's heart--the bible says elsewhere that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, which is irrelevant because the motion is fundamentally about contradiction, so appealing to a contradiction in the passages doesn't fly. God is the one who hardened the heart--and Con agrees that such would be morally contradictory by overriding free will.