The Instigator
medic0506
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
KnowItAll
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

The Christian Bible contains contradictions.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
KnowItAll
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,617 times Debate No: 16393
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (4)

 

medic0506

Con

Many claim that the Christian Bible contains many contradictions. As con, I will attempt to show that these contradictions can be clarified, within the Bible. Pro will give examples, of alleged contradictions, and attempt to refute my clarification. To avoid confusion, specific verses should be listed, along with an explanation of why there is a contradiction.

Burden of proof will be shared.

For the purpose of this debate, a contradiction is any statement made, in the Bible, that is inconsistent with other references to the same subject. As this debate is about what's in the Bible itself, an allegation can not require me to prove, or disprove any scientific fact. That can be another debate.

Bible: I use the King James Version, but will accept from any version.

Round 1 will be for acceptance, and listing of alleged contradiction/s.
Round 4 is the last round to introduce new arguments.

Concerns about debate rules, definitions, etc., can be addressed in the comments section.

As there are no allegations to address, at this time, I will await a challenger, and will begin my argument in round 2.
I look forward to this debate, and wish my opponent the best of luck.
KnowItAll

Pro

I thank my opponent for creating this debate.

I will take the position that the Bible does indeed contain contradictions I will agree to use King James Version of the Bible to avoid any confusion.

2 Kings 2.11
"As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind."
John 3:13
"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

No man has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven yet Elijah went up to heaven. Taking the chronological order of the Bible into consideration, Kings was written prior to John [1] If John were written prior to Kings one could argue that Elijah ascended to heaven after Jesus ascended but as this is not the case this is a clear contradiction.

Genesis 1:25-27
"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
In Genesis 1:25 through 1:27 it is clear that God created animal prior to man yet in Genesis 2:18 through 2:19 it is clear that God created man first, then created the animals and brought them to Adam so Adam could name every living creature.

Genesis 2:18-19

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:
and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

Animals were created prior to man yet man is created prior to animals. This is a second clear contradiction.
I now pass this debate to my opponent.

SOURCE
[1] http://ichthys.com...
Debate Round No. 1
medic0506

Con

I thank pro for accepting this challenge, and look forward to a spirited debate.

2 Kings 2:11/ John 3:13
I don't usually cut and paste but this is a good explanation of what happened to Elijah.

"2.Chronicles 21 contains a letter to King Jehoram from Elijah warning him about the punishment that God would give him and the nation of Judah. Notice that Elijah wrote this letter to king Jehoram of Judah who began his reign in 848 B.C.. This is a very important date because Elijah departed Israel by the chariot of fire at the end of Ahaziah's reign and the beginning of Joram's reign in 852 B.C.. This means that, even if Elijah wrote this letter at the beginning of Jehoram's reign, he could not have written it any earlier than four years after he had left Israel.
Remember that Elisha only asked for two thirds of the spirit that Elijah had. The reason he did not ask for more was that he knew Elijah would continue to live, and to ask for more power and authority than Elijah would be the same as asking to replace him as the chief prophet. This was an unthinkable thing for Elisha, because he knew that his master Elijah would continue to live.
The four year gap between the reigns of King Joram of Israel and King Jehoram of Judah proves beyond a doubt that Elijah was still alive long after his departure from his office as prophet to the House of Israel."

Since he didn't die, he couldn't have gone to Heaven. Keep in mind, people of that time used the word heaven to refer to the skies.

http://www.bibleresearch.org...

Genesis 1 and 2
Point 1- The two chapters serve different purposes.
Comparing these two chapters is not really comparing apples to apples. Genesis 1 gives a brief, chronological listing of the Creation, and it's main parts. Chapter 2 shows what God did on the seventh day, and then goes into a more detailed focus of what happened here on earth, adding detail that wasn‘t mentioned in the first chapter. If you want to see the correct order of events, look to chapter 1, this is where it‘s established.

Point 2- The order of Creation is already established in chapter 1, there is no need to use the next chapter for the same purpose. Genesis 2 doesn't need to be, nor does it imply, that the events listed are in any particular, or correct order. If that were the case, then a contradiction can be claimed because the making of the seasons, sun, moon, light, etc, aren't in chapter 2. As further evidence that no particular order was intended, chapter 1 puts the sea animals, and fowl being created on the fifth day, land animals and man on the sixth day. However, in chapter 2, they are lumped together. Also in chapter 2, man is mentioned before trees, but in chapter 1, the trees come first. I think this is proof that chapter 2 was for giving further information, and there was no intent, or need, to put things in a particular order, as that had already been established in Genesis 1. Therefore, there is no contradiction.

http://www.biblegateway.com...

I look forward to pro's response.
KnowItAll

Pro

"Since he didn't die, he couldn't have gone to Heaven. Keep in mind, people of that time used the word heaven to refer to the skies."

If the word heaven can refer to the skies and it's my opponent's position that Elijah did not go to heaven but was carried into the "sky" couldn't the same be said of Jesus?
John 3:13

"No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."
"No one has ascended into the sky except he who has descended from , the Son of Man."

Furthermore, why does Elijah have to be dead in order for him to go to heaven? According to the Bible, a person has entered heaven without dying, namely Enoch which can be found in Genesis 5. Yet another contradiction that someone ascended to heaven other than, "the Son of Man."

To further cement my position let's take a look at the following;
1. No team has ever won a football game when trailing by 5 points.
2. Manchester United won a football game after trailing by 5 points.

Using my opponent's logic; Football can also mean American Football and it's clear that the author was referring to American Football and Manchester United is a Soccer team. Soccer is known as football outside of the U.S. Football is the same word but has different meanings.

3. The New York Jets won a football game after trailing by 5 points.

The New York Jets are an American Football team and if 3 is true it contradicts 1 in the same way that John 3:13 - "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." Is contradicted by Elijah going up to heaven as well as Enoch going to heaven.

As further evidence that no particular order was intended, chapter 1 puts the sea animals, and fowl being created on the fifth day, land animals and man on the sixth day. However, in chapter 2, they are lumped together. Also in chapter 2, man is mentioned before trees, but in chapter 1, the trees come first. I think this is proof that chapter 2 was for giving further information, and there was no intent, or need, to put things in a particular order, as that had already been established in Genesis 1.

In order to provide further information on a subject one must add further detail. For example, If Genesis 1 is the chronological order of creation and my opponent states that Genesis 2 is to provide further detail, than Genesis 2 would provide information on how sea animals, land animals, etc. were created. Simply stating something that has already been stated does not provide further information. Furthermore, to state that events are not categorized chronologically in Genesis 2 is false.

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Reading 2:18-:25 it reads in correct chronological order. Interchange 20 and 19 or even 24 and 23 and the passages would not read correctly nor make sense. So it is meant to be read in chronological order with regard to the creation of man and woman but not the creation of all else simply because it would contradict Genesis 1?

To further my argument that the Bible contains contradictions let's take a look at Ecclessiastes 1:4 "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." Abideth means remain so the "earth will remain forever. Also, Deuteronomy 4:40 - "That thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for ever." Pretty clear, that the earth is here and will be here forever yet this is contradicted by the below;

Psalm 102:25-26 -The earth and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish.
Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away.

It's clear that not only the will earth perish/pass away but heaven as well. Something cannot exist forever and be destroyed as well, a very clear contradiction.

I now pass this debate to my opponent and look forward to his rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 2
medic0506

Con

Thanks to pro for his comments.

--"If the word heaven can refer to the skies and it's my opponent's position that Elijah did not go to heaven but was carried into the "sky" couldn't the same be said of Jesus?"--

The answer is no, the same can't be said for Jesus. There is strong biblical support for Jesus being in Heaven, with God. John 14: 1-3 puts Jesus, clearly, in the Father's house, Heaven.
"Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also."

Hebrews 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God. These 2 verses, and there are more, clarify that Jesus is in the Heaven where God is.

--""No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."
"No one has ascended into the sky except he who has descended from , the Son of Man."

Again, the verses I cited above, apply here. The Bible is clear, in many places, that Jesus is in the same Heaven where God is. A couple more examples:
John 6:38: "For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me."

Those are Jesus' own words, and it doesn't get much clearer than that. How could He be sent down from Heaven, by God, if He weren't in Heaven, with God??

John 6:46: "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."

Again, Jesus' own words. How could He see the Father, unless He was with the Father??
-----

--"Furthermore, why does Elijah have to be dead in order for him to go to heaven?"--

Which Heaven?? It's easily seen that they referred to 3 different heavens, in the Bible. That was just simply their language, the way they talked. What's interesting is that there is no record of God's presence, in Elijah's experience. No words from God, no conversation, no orders from God, no vision or description of what Heaven looks like. Remember, Elijah was still alive. After his experience, he reappeared in, I believe, Judah. Does it sound logical that he would have visited Heaven, and seen God, yet never said a word to anyone about it?? There is no record, that I know of, where Elijah claimed that he was in Heaven and met God. The man himself, never made the claim that he was in Heaven, with God. Now over 2,000 years later, atheists claim that he WAS there, and use this to try and show that the Bible isn't true. But there's simply no evidence for their claim, outside the author's use of the word "heaven". One other thing, 2 Kings 2:16 says, "And they said unto him, Behold now, there be with thy servants fifty strong men; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the Spirit of the LORD hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley. And he said, Ye shall not send." Now why would these people want to go look for Elijah if it appeared that he had disappeared up into the skies?? Since we know that Elijah was still alive, and that he surfaced somewhere else, doesn't it make more sense that they saw the chariot take him up and ACROSS the skies?? This would still put him up in the heavens, and would explain why those people wanted to go search for him.

Here is proof of the three different uses for the word "heaven". There are many more for each level but this should make the point.
Deuteronomy 11:17 and 28:12 refer to the sky.
Psalm 19:4 and 6, and Jeremiah 8:2 refer to outer space.
1 Kings 8:27 and Psalm 2:4 refer to the dwelling place of God.

The story does not specify which Heaven, Elijah went to.
I have shown biblical proof that "heaven" has three different meanings, in the Bible.
I have shown that Elijah did not die, and that he reappeared somewhere else.
I have shown that people wanted to go look for him. Why would they want to go look for him, on land, if he had disappeared into the skies??
There is no record of any claim, by Elijah, that he went to Heaven and saw God.
We've shown that Jesus said that no man has been to Heaven.
My opponent has offered nothing to prove this to be a contradiction, except a football analogy, and his insistence that heaven can only mean, the Heaven where God resides.

Clarification: Are you really claiming Enoch, in Genesis 5, as a contradiction?? If so, I will deal with it next round.

--"In order to provide further information on a subject one must add further detail. For example, If Genesis 1 is the chronological order of creation and my opponent states that Genesis 2 is to provide further detail, than Genesis 2 would provide information on how sea animals, land animals, etc. were created. Simply stating something that has already been stated does not provide further information."--

Every single verse in chapter two adds something that wasn't in chapter one. It may not be the level, or category, of detail my opponent wants to see, but nonetheless, each verse gives new detail, of some kind. I ask how chapter 2 is simply restating what chapter 1 said?? Yes, 2 does make reference to things that happened in 1, but it's far, far from just restating it.

--"Furthermore, to state that events are not categorized chronologically in Genesis 2 is false."--

I read my response again, and I did not say that events are not categorized chronologically. Nor did I say that chapter 2 abandoned any sense of accuracy. The "out of order" that I was referring to was the verses claimed as contradiction, and the ones I used as examples. The whole point is that the created order is established in Genesis 1. With that done, the author is free, in chapter 2, to go into further detail. In doing so, he combined a couple of, seemingly innocuous verses, possibly to save time or space, and now atheists think they have found a contradiction.
I did say that chapter 2 does not need to be, nor does it imply, that all events are chronologically accurate. Another way to explain what I mean is, chapter 1 specifies what happened on day 1, this happened on day 2, that happened on day 3, etc. Everything has a specified time, and order, that it happened. That isn't there in chapter 2, except for the events of day 7. It simply says that this happened, AND that happened, AND something else happened, AND another thing happened. If order were an important intent of chapter 2, instead of so many ANDs, we would expect to see words like then, after, next, etc., something indicating time or order. So, again, the important information regarding creation order, is contained in chapter 1. In chapter 2, there was no need to mention the animals earlier, so the verses were combined into 1, therefore, no contradiction exists.

--"3. The New York Jets won a football game after trailing by 5 points."--

The jets won a game?????

I didn't foresee this problem, so I didn't mention it in the rules, therefore I have no right to insist. However, I'm asking, in the interest of fairness, can we conclude discussion of one contradiction before introducing new ones??
I can do 2 at a time, but I'm running low on space, and simply don't have room to discuss the others. If one of us concedes a point, or we agree to leave the decision to the voters, then we can move on. I would be more than happy to continue into other debates, about this, if you'd like. Is this agreeable to you??

I look forward to pro's comments.
KnowItAll

Pro

I thank my opponent for his rebuttal and concede that Elijah entering heaven is not a contradiction. I will also concede the contradictions in Genesis.

However, I respectfully request that my opponent address the below argument which was presented in the previous round.

Ecclessiastes 1:4 "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." Abideth means remain so the "earth will remain forever. Also, Deuteronomy 4:40 - "That thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for ever." Pretty clear, that the earth is here and will be here forever yet this is contradicted by the below;

Psalm 102:25-26 -The earth and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish.
Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away.


It's clear that not only the will earth perish/pass away but heaven as well. Something cannot exist forever and be destroyed as well, a very clear contradiction.

I now pass this debate to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
medic0506

Con

I thank pro for his comments, as well as his patience. I apologize for not addressing this point when presented, but DDO only allows 8,000 characters, and I didn't think I'd have enough left, last round.

--"It's clear that not only the will earth perish/pass away but heaven as well. Something cannot exist forever and be destroyed as well, a very clear contradiction."--

Since we're talking about the end here, we have to go to Revelations, and other books that talk about end times, in order to clear this up. Revelations 21:1 says:
"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."

The earth and heavens, as we know them, have passed and been replaced by new ones. The Bible goes into more detail on this. The following verses show that the old heavens, and earth, will be cleansed by fire. Everything on the earth's surface will be gone, including oceans, leaving a clean slate for the new earth.

2 Peter 3:10- But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Revelation 6:14- And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
Zephaniah 1:2- I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith the LORD.

Then to finish off the new earth:

Revelation 21
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

And there you have it. The earth passes, yet remains. No contradiction.

I look forward to pro's response.
KnowItAll

Pro

I thank my opponent for his rebuttal and look forward to continuing this debate.

It is my opponents position that both Ecclessiastes 1:4 "One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." and Deuteronomy 4:40 - "That thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for ever." are not contradictory as the book of Revelation states that the earth will be replaced with a new earth and new heaven as stated in Revelation 21:1 "1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

However, Ecclessiastes 1:4 clearly states "the earth abideth." If something remains; to be a part not destroyed, taken or used up [1] by definition it cannot become new; having recently come into existence. [2] Remain - to be a part not destroyed, taken, or used up [2]

Ecclessiastes 1:4 therefore states that "One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the earth will not be destroyed, taken or used up and will remain.

Deuteronomy 4:40 - "That thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for ever. Forever; at all times : CONTINUALLY [3] Deuteronomy therefore states "That thou mayest prolong days upon the earth, which the Lord thy God giveth thee continuously, for all times.

Looking at both Ecclessiastes 1:4 and Deuteronomy 4:40 it is clear that the earth will not be destroyed, taken or used up and God gave that earth is to remain continuously forever.

Additionally, let's take a closer look at the word "the." The - "used as a function word before a proper name to indicate the distinctive characteristics of a person or thing [4] The is used before earth as in "the earth" to show distinctive characteristics. Both Deuteronomy 4:40 and Ecclessiastes 1:4 are referring the "the earth;" not an earth. If the term "an earth" were used one could argue that both scriptures are referring to something called earth. However as this is not the case it is clear that both are referring to the Earth that is in existence.

Comparing the above to Revelation 21:1 "1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. one can see a clear contradiction.

If something has recently come into existence it cannot have remained; to be a part not destroyed or taken up. Something cannot come into existence if something has previously existed. For example, when a house is built it did not exist prior to being built as the building process is what allows the house to exist. When a child is born it comes into existence as the child did not exist prior to entering the world. "The Earth" and a "New Earth" are clearly different things.

And there you have it. The earth passes, yet remains. No contradiction.
There is indeed a contradiction. Something cannot die while not being destroyed, taken or used up while recently having come into existence.

In conclusion, it is apparent that "the earth" and "a new earth" are different things as the words "the earth" are used to show uniqueness. While Ecclessiastes and Deuteronomy 4:40 speak of "the earth" not being destroyed, used up or taken and will exist continouslly, Revelation has "the earth" being replaced with a "new earth." As such, contradictions exist.

I now pass this debate to my opponent.

Sources

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 4
medic0506

Con

Thanks to pro for his comments.

--"However, Ecclesiastes 1:4 clearly states "the earth abideth." If something remains; to be a part not destroyed, taken or used up…"--

With all due respect to my opponent, he is taking too many liberties with definitions here. The Bible clearly says "abideth", not "remain". I did a search for abideth, on the link he provided, and the word isn't even listed in his dictionary. Clicking on the link shows that he was doing a search for the definition of "remain". A simple Google search will show that there are definitions for abideth. This may seem like a trivial point, but it isn't, as I'll explain.
There are a number of ways that "abideth" is used, throughout the Bible, and a number of current definitions. The most popular seems to be:

abideth [abideth (abide) ] v. stay; live, dwell; continue; tolerate, put up with; wait; comply, submit, obey, conform

Pro is using Ecclesiastes 1:4, One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

In using the definition of remain, he is arguing that this verse has a particular "intent", but gives nothing to back up his translation. If he is going to argue intent, and claim a contradiction, then it needs to be shown that his translation, of this verse, is the same as the author intended. Once the verse is defended, the onus is on the claimant. Otherwise, I could pick another word, from the definition of abideth, and simply post this example:

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth "submits" (to God's will) for ever.
Note: I am not arguing that my verse is a proper translation. I'm only showing an example of why pro's argument doesn't prove a contradiction.

Without further support, both of our altered verses are equally valid, equally fit into the context of the passage, and equally fit the definition of "abideth".

--"…by definition it cannot become new; having recently come into existence.…"--

Once again, rigid adherence to a chosen definition, without proof that it is the correct, or even best one. There are others, on his link, that fit perfectly with the idea of a new heaven and earth. Definition 4a works especially well with the verse about a new earth.

New:
2. a : having been seen, used, or known for a short time
b : being other than the former or old
3 : having been in a relationship or condition but a short time
4 a : beginning as the resumption or repetition of a previous act or thing
b : made or become fresh
c : relating to or being a new moon.
5 : different from one of the same category that has existed previously
6 : of dissimilar origin and usually of superior quality

All of those definitions work with a new heaven and new earth, as written about, in the Bible. Rigid adherence to pro's chosen definition, and logic, means that we could never become a new person because we have to completely destroy the old one first. I could never buy a new stereo because it already existed before I bought it. Today we use figurative speech, all the time, in spite of being educated, and having sophisticated languages. It doesn't seem difficult to believe that thousands of years ago, uneducated people, who lived in tents, might use some figurative speech, in their writings.

--"Additionally, let's take a closer look at the word "the." The - "used as a function word before a proper name to indicate the distinctive characteristics of a person or thing [4] The is used before earth as in "the earth" to show distinctive characteristics. Both Deuteronomy 4:40 and Ecclessiastes 1:4 are referring the "the earth;" not an earth. If the term "an earth" were used one could argue that both scriptures are referring to something called earth. However as this is not the case it is clear that both are referring to the Earth that is in existence."--

I doubt that the uneducated authors knew about those english rules when they wrote their books in Hebrew, centuries ago. To hold their works to the same standards we use today is unreasonable.

--"If something has recently come into existence it cannot have remained; to be a part not destroyed or taken up."--

This entire paragraph is invalidated by the first sentence. Pro is simply combining his unsubstantiated choice of definitions, into one sentence, hoping that it will be accepted as fact.

Even if all my other arguments are judged to be invalid, there is another issue that has to be considered, before deciding that this is a true contradiction. Pro used Deuteronomy, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, and Matthew to illustrate this alleged contradiction. Although a few select people had visions, of the end times, most people wouldn't have known what God had planned, until later. For many authors, of the Bible, their writings would have been complete before the final plan was revealed. So is it a contradiction for them to mention something, based on their knowledge at the time of the writing, and have it be wrong, when there was no way for them to know?? I don't think it qualifies as a true contradiction when they couldn't have known the end of the story.

Pro has found two sets of verses, and interpreted them in a way, that he thinks, causes a contradiction. As justification for his interpretation, he uses today's definitions, rather than consider what the words might have meant, to the authors, or what their intent was. In addition, though there are other definitions that can apply, he chooses the definition that supports his position, and insists that that definition is the only possibility. I have used biblical references to refute pro's points, in several ways. Judging by this debate, the burden of proof, of a biblical contradiction, has not been met, by pro, so I ask a vote for con.

Thanks to pro for a good debate.
KnowItAll

Pro

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means" - George Bernard Shaw
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
Quite welcome, the only doubts I had were in the comments section. While I was reading the debate, I thought I knew what you were talking about.
Posted by medic0506 6 years ago
medic0506
Unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning, it seems to me that explaining why there isn't a contradiction, would qualify as a clarification. I will be more careful with definitions, in the future. Regardless, win or lose, I really enjoyed the debate. Thanks for taking time to read it and offering constructive criticism.
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
That's an interesting piece of semantic dodgery, and if it had been developed within the debate, I might have voted for you. As it stands, your instructions to Pro are that PRO should list "alleged" contradictions and "an explanation of why there is a contradiction."

From that, it's not apparent that you're meaning "clarify" to mean "explain why there is a contradiction" because that's the goal you set for your opponent and not what you were doing in R2, where you were explaining why there WASN'T a contradiction.

Still, if you had went for a semantic attack on the word clarify in the debate, it might have worked.
Posted by medic0506 6 years ago
medic0506
As I stated in the second sentence in round one, the goal, of the debate, was for me to attempt to clarify the contradictions. That's an admission that there are difficulties in the Bible, but they can be clarified, if one looks with an open mind. If skeptics are intent on finding problems, and unfairly not looking to see if there's a reason for that problem, then I wasted my time in this debate. I will be more careful, in the future, in how I word the title so that there are no technicalities to fall back on.
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
@medic
It doesn't matter for the purposes of this debate why the contradictions are there. If old testament guy says the earth will continue forever, and new testament guy says it'll be destroyed and replace with a new earth, then it doesn't matter whether it's because god told the first guy one thing and the second guy another, if the first guy exceeded his divine inspirational mandate, or if the whole thing's a load of hooey.

All that matters for this debate is that the contradictions exist.
Posted by medic0506 6 years ago
medic0506
@Ximenboa

As for your vote comment, if you are going to expect the authors to know what God's future plans are, before they're made known, I see why you're an atheist. If they did match up perfectly then atheists would be claiming that the Bible is a fraud because they couldn't have known details like that at the time they wrote it. Atheists are going to find something wrong with the Bible, even if it's illogical.
Posted by medic0506 6 years ago
medic0506
@Knowitall

I agree with that theory, to a degree. Many people, on both sides, find the verses that support what they want the Bible to say, then stop looking. If they can't make it say what they want, they deny the Bibles' legitimacy, or reinterpret the verse. In truth, there are a finite amount of verses, on whatever the issue is, and all of them need to be considered. We also have to take into account a number of external factors. Things like, who wrote the verse, when it was written, whether the verse applies to just certain people or everyone, whether the verse was meant to be taken literally or is symbolic, whether our understanding of the verse matches the meaning of the chapter, etc. We also have to understand that the Bible was written by people who were not well educated, and they would have tried to write in a way that the people of that era would understand. The authors could not have imagined the level of scrutiny, that their works would come under. If they had, I'm sure they would have tried to write a little differently. I think it's unfortunate that, rather than consider the external factors, and read the Bible with an open mind, people have preconceived ideas about what they want it to say, and if they can't make it say what they want, they discard it as if God is wrong, and they are right.
Posted by KnowItAll 6 years ago
KnowItAll
What medic0506 stated.
Posted by medic0506 6 years ago
medic0506
I don't realy think it's a concession. I could be wrong but I think he's eluding to the theory that one can make the Bible say whatever he wants.
Posted by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
The debate structure is unclear. Am I supposed to read Pro's pithy quote in round 5 as a concession? Didn't notice until after I voted and can't cancel.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
medic0506KnowItAllTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Cn didn't refute the claims. The last round was horrifying for pro.
Vote Placed by XimenBao 6 years ago
XimenBao
medic0506KnowItAllTied
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: Normally, I'd treat Pro's R5 as dropping and conceding all arguments and vote Con, but since both debaters suggested in comments that they'd prefer I'd not read it like that, I'll cast a vote for pro. Con gave an alternate set of definitions for abides, the most fitting of which was "continues," and I don't see how something can continue forever and yet be destroyed. It does seem to me that finding an explanation where that isn't a contradiction is forced and unconvincing.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
medic0506KnowItAllTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro showed contradictions to be true, and con brought up weak refutations. Sources: I felt con provided higher quality sources.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
medic0506KnowItAllTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con adequately answered all the objectives given by Pro. Well done.