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

The King James Bible is without contradiction.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/24/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 322 times Debate No: 82993
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




We are not going to turn this into a debate about having to prove God. My opponent can win the debate by presenting legitimate contradictory verses (where only 1 can be true) which I cannot give a reasonable answer for. Again, reasonable is not defined by the reader's personal belief in the supernatural. A legitimate claim of a contradiction would be something similar to this:
verse 1: Jesus died when He was 33
verse 2: Jesus died when He was 40
verse 1: the first king of Israel was John
verse 2: the first king of Israel was Saul
Not going down some rabbit hole about whether or not Noah really made an ark (which I would gladly debate, just not on this particular one) or something like that. Contradictions.
Also I will not be required to answer some cheap link to a website devoted to supposed contradictions. My opponent must list and quote the King James verses in question and declare what the contradiction is believed to be.

Round 1 my opponent will begin to bring forward the alleged verses so that I have something to respond to. I will stick to rebuttals and explanations on my turns. My opponent must waive their 5th round and write nothing as I have no opportunity to refute any additional supposed contradictions at that point.

God bless!


Round 1! *DING*
As Pro says, our only source will be the King James Version of the Bible. We will be excluding contradictions with reality/science, we will only be focusing on textual inconsistencies between different books in the KJV Bible. If I step out of line on this point, you the voter, should hold this against me (Con) while voting. Likewise should Pro conflate what the text says with his personal interpretation of the text, as opposed to what the text actually says, be wary!

Excluding the last round which I will forfeit as Pro wishes, I will present two inconsistent sets of verses in rounds 2,3 and 4 (only one in the first round). There is no need for overkill here, I think the burden of proof is much higher for Pro, so will not be giving an exorbitant amount of arguments to deal with. Also I care about you, the reader/voter, so will try to keep my arguments to a minimum to make it more presentable. Mind you, all I need to provide is one inconsistency in the KJV that cannot be fixed to prove the motion wrong.

Let"s start off easy. Genealogy time (I promise it will be brief)!

Matthew 1:16
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Luke 3:23
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

So, who is the father of Joseph? Jacob or Heli? Do these claims seem at odds? Yes, they do. They seem that way because they are. Two different genealogies are given for Jesus between the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Now, this is disputed by apologists by inserting their thoughts after the fact. They will invoke the Law of Moses to claim that Joseph was married to Mary, so could claim her father as his in genealogies. This is adding things that the books do not say. You have to take what is said in the book of Number (Chapter's 27 and 36) and conflate inheritance laws with how genealogies are kept. In the old testament genealogies are kept precisely. If it was through Mary's side, based on tradition, that caveat would have been mentioned. As evidence I will provide this link,
Here in Genesis 22:20-24, we have children listed to specific parents. They are so precise as to mention which children are born of a concubine, even naming the concubine.

Again, I assert that the verses are at odds. These are two different books, so it is no surprising! It should be remembered that the "Bible" is a collection of books, not a book in and of itself.

This concludes my Round 1 argument, I look forward to my opponents refutation.
Debate Round No. 1


OK great. The Word will stand up to fair scrutiny, otherwise I wouldn't have made the challenge. I also thought to myself, surely I could find contradictions, but I found that they were a result of using faulty corrupted versions or a misunderstanding of it.

"This is adding things that the books do not say."
The Bible isn't a book that contains 100% of every subject matter imaginable, as such a book could not possibly exist. It cannot possibly tell us every last detail we might want to inquire about. However, we can have a good idea as to what we could safely assume and seems reasonable enough to accept as a possible solution or answer to any subject matter contained that could have at first glance raise some questions. So what I'm getting at is for many cases you have to add in some thoughts if you hope to get to an answer. Anything less than that is to dismiss it prematurely and jump to conclusions. Don't fret though, I will not be presenting any far-fetched silliness that is nothing more than an excuse when it's clearly wrong.

So let's get started.

Luke is giving the physical ancestors (or in one or two cases a very close adoptive relation), while Matthew is most interested in showing that the father of Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of David.

The correctness of this view of the purpose and the meaning of each genealogy is confirmed by the fact that the genealogy in Luke begins at the end and works backward, whereas the genealogy in Matthew begins at the beginning. Where the point was to trace the actual descent of Joseph back to David that could be done by recording the tradition of the family as to his actual father, Heli, and the actual father of Heli, and so on up to Nathan the son of David. But where the point was to mention the successive heirs of the Davidic throne, it was natural to begin with David and work down.

What then actually happened in the generations just before Jesus? Here is one possible scenario. And that is all we can do is offer plausible solutions since the actual facts are hidden from us.

Matthew's genealogy

Luke's genealogy

Suppose that Eleazar, the legal heir of David's throne died without widow or son. Customarily a more or less close relative would be counted as his legal descendent and be said to have been "begotten" by him. Suppose also that Matthan is that relative and is the same person as Matthat (in Luke) with an alternative spelling. That would mean that Jacob and Heli are brothers. Then suppose that Jacob dies before he has sons. According to the custom of Levirate marriage (see Matthew 22:25) the brother of the deceased man is to marry and raise up descendants for the sake of the name of the dead brother. Thus Heli marries Jacob's wife and they give birth to Joseph, Jesus' father. In this way Joseph is the legal heir through Jacob's line, but the actual physical son of Heli.

This is a perfect example of how something can appear to be in conflict but actually be 100% true.

This is fun though, it makes me think about and look up different things a person might reference as an error or contradiction. I look forward to the remaining arguments. Also I reject the notion that you have any such "contradictions with reality/science" if you're using a fair interpretation. That can be the sequel to this debate if you like.


I would like to amend my statement in the first round. I will only present one contradiction per round. I hope Pro and the DDO audience will not hold it against me, family complications are effecting the time available to spend online... I apologize for eliminating promised content but hope you will still find my arguments interesting and worth viewing. Now, let us return to the subject matter!

*Ding* Round 2!

Interesting! Very interesting. So, in response to a discrepancy that is clearly present, Pro proposes a scenario in which it could be reconciled, using fine mental gymnastics! However, even if the proposed scenario was true it does not change that this is still a textual discrepancy. Pro is working around the author"s text to support what Pro wants instead of reading what the author(s) put! I am willing to say Pro"s argument could be historically accurate, that doesn"t matter to this debate! This debate is over the textual variations of the KJV, not how one can "maybe" think up scenarios where it can "possibly" fit together.

I accept that the bible doesn't have every subject covered. I never made such a statement. However if Pro is giving it an interpretation then that is based on how Pro is reading it. It has little to do what the text actually says. What a text says is what the words are in the text. Not how one can rationalize in light of a presupposition that the KJV Bible is inerrant.

That's enough of a response to Pro's post. On to more discrepancies!

So, where did Mary and Joseph take Jesus after his birth? This may seem like an odd question for me to ask! However in our source material, the KJV (and all the translations I've read for that matter!) the gospels say two different sets of events. This will be two stories that are at odds in such ways that they cannot reasonably be reconciled.
I will now provide links to the appropriate chapters in the respective gospels.

Matthew Chapter 2

Luke Chapter 2

In the Gospel of Matthew, we see Joseph is given a vision in a dream. He is warned of Herod's treachery and they (Mary, Joseph and Jesus) depart for Egypt, they do this waiting out Herod's passing. For quick reference, this essentially takes place in Chapter 2 verses 13-15. So Bethlehem to Egypt.

Now what does Luke"s Gospel have to say about these events? In Chapter 2 verses 21-24, it says nothing. Jesus is born in Bethlehem, but that is where the similarities stop. They circumcise him after 8 days, then wait for Mary to be pure (Law of Moses on child birth, Leviticus 12), they then go to Jerusalem to present Jesus to the Lord. They go places, but none of those places are Egypt.

In Matthew, Jesus' events after birth are at odds with what Luke says the following events where. Either Jesus stays in Israel, or he doesn't! Same goes for Mary and Joseph, they cannot be in two places at once. They either went to Egypt, staying there until Herod's death OR they stay in Israel! If they stay, it says Joseph and Mary took a trek to Jerusalem every year for twelve years. This is at odds with staying in Egypt for years awaiting Herod's death.

It doesn't say years in Matthew, my opponent may bring up. It doesn't matter. Either Jesus' parents did what it says in Luke or Matthew. It would be hard to argue that Luke would leave out such important details as Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt for a nondescript amount of time to save Jesus. Since Herod kills all the children two and under in Matthew, it should be reasonable to believe that Jesus remained in Egypt no less than two years. These would be two years that Joseph and Mary did not attend Passover in Jerusalem. This is at odds with Luke, who attests that they attended it every year until Jesus' 12th birthday.

I am well aware that omission does not mean contradiction. It cannot be made right through the text though. In one, Herod is after Jesus. In the other, Herod is not discussed (well, his son is in the next chapter and they bear the same name). Either Herod was after them and they were driven out of Israel to Egypt for a time or they stay in Israel and go about their business. To fix this inconsistency one would have to keep making their explanation more and more outlandish. The simplest answer is of course that these are two different story traditions, which is why there is such disconnect between Matthew and Luke.

So, I assert that these are contradictory stories. Most of the events, people, and places do differ. Shepherds or wise men? Fleeing to Egypt or no such trek? Either one happened or the other did! To reconcile these and smash the stories together is to disregard their authors who wished to share particular stories. It is in essence, the reader making their own gospel. That is fine, theologically! It is not fine to use such arguments to claim that a collection of books, never likely meant to be read in light of each other, are not contradictory!

They are contradictory. If one text claims something that the other does not, while claiming other events in the same time frame, then they are at odds.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


"My opponent can win the debate by presenting legitimate contradictory verses (where only 1 can be true) which I cannot give a reasonable answer for. "
That is the standard. The issue isn't whether it appears to contradict at 1st glance, what matters is does it for sure or not. I showed that it is not impossible for both to be true and I gave a reasonable answer, thus fulfilling my obligations. I could see if I was sitting here saying hey it's God so all things are possible or something. Which is true, but I'm seeking honest, reasonable answers that actually make sense and don't require putting everything we know to be true on standby.

Matthew 2 vs. Luke 2

"the gospels say two different sets of events. This will be two stories that are at odds in such ways that they cannot reasonably be reconciled."

OK. Again, let's not jump the gun and get ahead of ourselves. I actually had to relook at the argument to see why you thought they were "at odds" to begin with. It's too bad Christopher Hitchens isn't around to see his argument be refuted, as this is right out of his garbage book "God is not Great" (2007).

"So, where did Mary and Joseph take Jesus after his birth?"
I think the answer you are looking for is Egypt but I will cover all the "afters" mentioned in both of the chapters you cited to cover all bases just in case. The best way to start is to simply put them in chronological order side by side and see what is mentioned and what is not.

Events in order according to Matthew 2:
Jesus is born in Bethlehem.
Wise men arrive looking for Jesus.
Herod tells the wise men to go to Bethlehem and let him know when they find him.
The wise men leave and follow the star to Jesus. Notice it says they come to a house and not a manger. Also, that they refer to Jesus as a young child, not a baby. Thus, the typical wise men nativity scene should actually be shepherds to be accurate to the events.
The wise men present gifts.
The wise men are warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod.
The wise men do not go back towards Herod but avoid him by taking another route to their country of origin.
An angel appears to Joseph in a dream saying to go to Egypt because Herod will try to kill Jesus.
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph go to Egypt.
Herod realizes the wise men tricked him and gives the order to kill all children 2 years of age and younger. It is important to notice here that it explicitly says "according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men." So now we know, we have a 2 year time window to work with.
Herod dies and an angel appears to Joseph again letting him know.
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph go briefly to Israel then go to Nazareth, Galilee.
end of chapter

Events (after birth) in order according to Luke 2:
Jesus is born in Bethlehem.
Shepherds from Judea see angels and then go to see Jesus.
When Jesus is 8 days old He is circumcised and named.
After 33 days have passed they take Him to Jerusalem and offer a sacrifice.
Simeon and Anna prophesy.
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph go to Nazareth, Galilee.
Jesus at 12 years old stays behind in Jerusalem, Mary and Joseph go looking for Him.
They find Him 3 days later in the temple and return to Nazareth.
end of chapter

Both are accurate accounts with no contradiction whatsoever. 1 Gospel mentions the wise men and not the shepherds and vice versa. That doesn't mean that both wise men and shepherds didn't go to see Jesus. 1 mentions Egypt and 1 doesn't, which doesn't mean they didn't go to Egypt.

Here are all of the events from both Gospels in chronological order:
Jesus is born.
Shepherds from Judea see angels and then go to see Jesus (while in the manger).
When Jesus is 8 days old He is circumcised and named.
After 33 days have passed they take Him to Jerusalem and offer a sacrifice.
Simeon and Anna prophesy.
Wise men arrive looking for Jesus.
Herod tells the wise men to go to Bethlehem and let him know when they find him.
The wise men leave and follow the star to Jesus.
The wise men present gifts.
The wise men are warned by God in a dream not to return to Herod.
The wise men do not go back towards Herod but avoid him by taking another route to their country of origin.
An angel appears to Joseph in a dream saying to go to Egypt because Herod will try to kill Jesus.
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph go to Egypt.
Herod realizes the wise men tricked him and gives the order to kill all children 2 years of age and younger.
Herod dies and an angel appears to Joseph again letting him know.
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph go briefly to Israel then go to Nazareth, Galilee.
Jesus at 12 years old stays behind in Jerusalem, Mary and Joseph go looking for Him.
They find Him 3 days later in the temple and return to Nazareth.

There you go. The whole point of having all 4 different Gospels is to be able to compare and get the whole story. None of the Gospels have all the story. If you just choose 1 then you are left with an incomplete story, which is already incomplete to begin with because the focus is more on His adult life and ministry than when He was a baby or a child. Still having fun and I look forward to the next "contradiction".


I assume Pro read my comments, which is why his argument was submitted so quickly. How kind of you, Pro.

Let's begin.
Pro gave apologetics to my first round, trying to rationalize verses in error.. Rationalizing something that is clearly wrong. Pro is a liar if he would claim that they are not contradictory. Pro can try to rationalize all he wants. That's fine, theologically. However the verses are at odds, Pro desperately trying to make sense of it doesn't change the verses. Sorry, that's really all that was said needed to be done for Con to win... By the standards defined. How people will vote, who knows.

As for accusing me of using an argument from a book I have never read (for round 2).. That's interesting. I've never read a single book by Christopher Hitchens. Then again, Pro seems to not care about truth. I noticed the discrepancy because I can read, and I've read the bible. I noticed it when I was a pre-teen. I've heard the argument repeated (since then) by one of America's top Biblical Scholars, Bart Ehrman. He is a New Testament Professor from Chapel Hill, who has actually read many of the Greek manuscripts. He even has a lecture on how the KJV was created, which is fascinating and I would encourage people to check it out. It is available on Youtube.

I don't feel much need to defend my round 2. Pro attests that smashing two different books together is an honest approach to the books. Any reasonable person would see that Pro is doing something ridiculous. Besides, Pro picked the KJV because the people who put it together altered a lot of the scripture. They did this in places they found discrepancies, and we know this because scholars have access to older Greek manuscripts. It was smart of Pro to pick the KJV, but if he knows anything about the bible... Pro knows that it was heavily altered.

Let's get onto our verses. It will be fun to see Pro do mental backflips to make this work. When it very clearly does not.

Matthew 5:38-39... 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Luke 19:27... But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

These are quotes of Jesus'. So, should we do as he says in Matthew? Or in Luke? Orders of mercy and submission? Or direct command to murder those who are not for Jesus? Hmm... Seems like keeping both orders would be impossible, because they are.

Let's move on. How should we pray?

Matthew 6:7-8... 7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

1 Thessalonians 5:17-18... 17 Pray without ceasing. 18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.

So, does God already know what you will pray? Eliminating the need for long prayer? Or should one keep going and going? Energizer bunny style, as God really needs all that thanks? Maybe he likes the sound of our voices? Maybe he has trouble staying consistent...

It's fascinating to see that Pro still does not understand that taking four totally different books (actually, 80 in the KJV), smashing them together and writing his own gospel is not really reading the books for what they say.. Pro is making them say something that none of them say, by forcing conflation. Pro still finds this to be an honest reading? By what standard does he not feel the need to include the Gospel of Peter? Gospel of Thomas? Because they are not bound together about 1500 years after they were all written? Interesting.

Pro does not have a honest approach to the bible. Inconsistencies do not exist to those who close their minds and hearts. I would suggest Pro take his own holy book's words seriously.

John 8:32... And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Debate Round No. 3


I'm not going to keep repeating the same thing. I have completed my part and have met all the requirements by supplying a reasonable explanation. Thus it can not be said it contradicts without a reasonable answer. Otherwise, the debate becomes pointless and becomes a matter of what my opponent believes it to say as supposed to what it actually intends to say. Maybe my opponent is the 1 who wants no part of the truth...

Somehow my opponent doesn't even grasp the concept that each Gospel has different accounts and viewpoints but that they make up a whole story. This was probably not a debate that he should've taken in that case. I assumed that it was common knowledge that the Bible is 1 book as a whole but is made up of many smaller books which all go together and are MEANT to be intertwined. Next time, it would be wise stick to what he knows and not what he claims to know, or what he figured as a kid. Really it's apparent that no matter what I respond with, it is followed up with some excuse as to why it isn't valid when it clearly is. Also with the whining about a comment asking me to wait, which I didn't even see before I did my round... I'm glad I didn't see it though from the attitude I'm getting and anyway it looks as though he found time to make more than 1 argument and it didn't take very long so...

"It will be fun to see Pro do mental backflips to make this work. When it very clearly does not."
Yeah I've heard that twice already...

Wow, this is going to turn out to be really easy... I see my opponent is also not aware that each text has a context that it is in. It's easy to twist up somebody's words when you take it out of context. I think everyone knows that already though. Another important factor to point out is that my opponent doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that Jesus spoke in parables A LOT. Again, I thought this was common knowledge.

Matthew 5:38-39 vs Luke 19:27

In Matthew we see a direct order from Jesus as to how we should operate here on earth. We shouldn't seek retribution but rather show love and forgiveness. This is a common theme, to love your enemies and whatnot.

In Luke we simply see a parable which starts earlier in the chapter (verse 11) and is "stealthily" cut down to 1 single verse which gives no insight whatsoever as to what is going on. It is a parable and it merely speaks of cutting down and punishing the rebellious and wicked on judgement. I've never ever even seen somebody imply that this is some kind of order Jesus is giving for somebody else to carry out at that time. What I have explained it as is not only what it actually is but it coincides with many other parables which have the same or similar message as that one (since every single time I explain these things I'm met with outlandish excuses).

Matthew 6:7-8 vs 1 Thessalonians 5:17-18

So it gets even easier? OK... They are BOTH correct and say different important messages.

In Matthew it says not to use vain repetitions as the heathen do. In other words, not to do little chants like heathen or also not to keep repeating the same words or prayer over and over. To say something once per prayer is enough. So, it is unbiblical for Catholics to do penance and repeat Our Father or Hail Mary over and over because that falls into the category of much speaking with repetitions in vain. They will not be heard, especially if they're waiting on Mary to help... but that's a different topic. This passage is not implying or commanding to not pray at all or on rare occasion, it simply says don't keep repeating yourself over and over and expect to be heard because of your much speaking.

In Thessalonians it is simply telling us to pray often and remember to give thanks. That's it. Nobody then or now ever thought that it meant to never stop praying... I mean if that were the case there would be no Gospel or Christianity or anything because the only members would be too busy praying nonstop to be able to do anything else ever.

"So, does God already know what you will pray?"

"Eliminating the need for long prayer?"
No, it's up to you how long you want to pray but don't expect to be heard or find favor just because you repeated the same thing over and over like a heathen.

"Or should one keep going and going? Energizer bunny style, as God really needs all that thanks?"
I'm assuming that's not a serious question.

"Maybe he likes the sound of our voices?"
Maybe... does it matter?

"Maybe he has trouble staying consistent..."
Maybe you'll end up being punished for YOUR much speaking. I'll leave that between you 2 though.

"Gospel of Peter? Gospel of Thomas?"
I see you want to get off topic and speak of uninspired books that aren't a part of the KJV so they are completely irrelevant to this debate. If you want to talk about uninspired books and expect somebody to defend them then maybe you should try making a new debate with that and see if somebody is dumb enough to take it.

"Pro does not have a honest approach to the bible."
Actually, I'm the only one doing that so far. Maybe if you had read the Bible and tried to learn something instead of squandering your time trying to find errors that aren't there you might have learned something of value AND been saved. Fortunately for me though, whether you scoff at it or not it doesn't change my debate outcome or my salvation. God bless.


I did not read my opponents last argument. I assume it is as weak as his others, and will let the voters judge the strength of his argument. Even if well presented, his arguments are weak and poorly supported. I barely have time to construct my own rounds, something Pro already knew and took advantage of. A very Christian person, indeed. While this is irrelevant to our debate, this is why some hostility may have came out in this and my last round. I apologize to the voters. In future debates I will watch my conduct more closely.

Here is my final set of verses. I've decided to post a few of them. Enjoy!

Who carried Jesus' cross?

Mark 15:21... 21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.

John 19:17... 17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

Either he carried his own cross, or he was helped. Both accounts make claims that are different. I only put two verses, but Mark"s story is corroborated in Matthew 27:32 and Luke 23:26.

Did both of the thieves crucified with Jesus taunt him?

Matthew 27:44... 44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

Luke 23:39-42... 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

Again, two different accounts that are at odds. The thieves either mocked him ("cast the same in his teeth" sounds odd, but it"s essentially insulting) or one did and the other stood up for Jesus. Accounts of the same event being different"

Where is Jesus, at the 6th hour on the day of his crucifixion?

Mark 15:32-33... 32 Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reviled him. 33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

John 19:13-16... 13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! 15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. 16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

Again, he is either on the cross already or in Pilate's presence. Not both!

Readers, voters! Take note of how silly Pro's arguments seem. I would never say that Christianity is silly (many of my loved ones are devout Christians), but reading the bible with your decisions about what it says... Before you know what it says... This is not honest. Having to back up and make up things to make your presuppositions work... Fundamentalist Religious belief is the only area of discourse that allows this sort of talking and accepts it. Do not suspend your ability to think for religion or any other subject. The Bible is a beautiful book, we do not need to lie to ourselves about it. Do not allow yourself to be deceived, as Pro does.

Good people of DDO! Discrepancies are discrepancies. Claiming they aren"t, making up things, and repeating falsehoods does not make them go away. Vote Con for the proposition.

To close, I would like to ask Pro to respond to this for his last round... Can you supply a Jewish source saying that the Pharisees and Sadducees celebrated the Passover on different days? All the sources (including your presented one) all seem to come from Apologist Christians... And they do not cite anything that would confirm this. They tend to cite other Christian works... If this is true, there should be Jewish sources that confirm. I contest that your assertion is false.

Here is a source that contests what you have asserted.
Debate Round No. 4



So apparently when you actually have an answer to the supposed contradictions it isn't even read and dismissed as a "weak" argument, even though it makes complete sense. Complaining and making excuses about a debate that you yourself accepted and are guaranteed more than 3 days to get your stuff together per argument is what is weak. Then I don't know if my opponent is confusing debates or what but we never even discussed the passover or Pharisees and Sadducees either for that matter. So there's no reason or point to responding to something that I never even said. "Can you supply a Jewish source saying that the Pharisees and Sadducees celebrated the Passover on different days?"
Also, I should mention that putting up a "source" to some random irrelevant argument that was made up for some strange reason should not help my opponent's situation in any way, if anything... anyways...

I'm not too sure why it is assumed that just because 1 Gospel doesn't mention a certain detail or event that somehow means it's a contradiction... It doesn't follow from my logic. On the 1 hand if the stories were too similar and coincided with every single detail we wouldn't really have independent testimony and then they'd be accused of collusion. However, to coincide but not be exactly the same isn't good enough either. So it doesn't matter what is written or how for some people because they will find some excuse to say it's no good regardless of the circumstances.

So again this first one is easy. John 19:17 doesn't go into very much detail at all. It just says that Jesus carried the cross and doesn't say much at all about that part of the passion while other Gospels have included the detail of Simon helping carry it part of the way. Both are true though as both did indeed carry it at least part of the way but it doesn't in any way contradict each other where only 1 can be true by any means. Also, it is important for the reader to note that we are talking about documents that existed way before the printing press or books as we know them. We are talking about scrolls which are limited to a certain amount of content, so essentially having the 4 different Gospels is the only reason we know as much of the story as we do.

Did both of the thieves crucified with Jesus taunt him?
Yes. This is affirmed by both Matthew and Mark. I don't know if taunt is the word for it or not but it was some kind of negative attitude towards Jesus.

Crucifixion is a very long process. It's not like hanging somebody or a firing squad. You're talking about several hours if not days to actually die. That's also why the Romans were known to "finish the job" at some point. Either by stabbing with a lance or breaking bones and other ghastly methods. It is easy to imagine a couple of criminals being executed and being bitter, saying more than they probably should. Thanks to Luke 23: 39-41 we know an additional little piece of the story.

Now one of the hanged malefactors blasphemed Him, saying, "Are not you Christ? Save yourself and us!" Yet answering, the other one, rebuking him, averred, "Yet you are not fearing God, seeing that you are in the same judgment! And we, indeed, justly, for we are getting back the deserts of what we commit, yet this One commits nothing amiss."

We don't know for sure what caused the 1 criminal to realize something was different about Jesus. Jesus made statements like, "Forgive them for they know not what they do." Which is a very humble and forgiving thing to say. It doesn't go into every single little detail and say every person that walked by or complete conversations. Why would it? Also, if you reread it in Luke, it could be argued that they have both seemed to notice something and the 1 criminal could be saying like, "Hey, if you really are God then save all of us from this because I don't wanna die." kinda thing. What we do know for sure is that 1 of the criminals is fearing of God enough to make that remark and is clearly starting to grasp his oncoming fate and choosing more wisely how to behave and think before it is time to meet Him in judgement. We don't know what the criminal saw, heard, thought, or conversated to come to his conclusion. Whatever it was though I bet he's glad it happened right about now...

Sometimes we don't really even think about it much as Christians because it doesn't really matter that much. When it comes to things that are of little importance and don't have any bearing on any belief or doctrine it is put on the back burner for things that do affect salvation and doctrine. At the end of the day we're talking about 2 criminals that are being executed who never would have even been mentioned if it didn't happen to be when Jesus was executed. So it is no surprise that the whole scroll wasn't used up just to make this little piece of it complete enough to be able to reenact their whole conversation and experience for hours on the crosses. I'm just grateful for the little details we do get here and there. More than wanting to win this debate I just hope some people out there can see that it isn't good to assume and jump to conclusions. There are sites out there that will put 2 verses there for you out of context and call it a contradiction. It really does look like one if you don't take the time to see what the context is all about, and thus the actual message. Let's first see what is what and if it is true or not, then make our conclusions. God bless.


THsea forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Soldier_4Christ 10 months ago
I didn't see that last one so I don't know whatever I guess. The guy acted like he wasn't reading it anymore anyways.
Posted by THsea 10 months ago
S4C, I felt no need to do anything but let the clock run out. Maybe I would have manually forfeited if you were a little more decent.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: NothingSpecial99// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit

[*Reason for removal*] It was agreed at the start of the debate that Con would waive the final round, which means whether he forfeited the round by posting or not posting, it should not be regarded as a conduct violation.
Posted by Soldier_4Christ 10 months ago
you need to put the end or something so people can start voting
Posted by THsea 10 months ago
I'll be putting my last argument as late as I can.

Can't wait for your next round of presuppositional nonsense.
Posted by THsea 10 months ago
Hey S4C, just wanted you to know that I'll submit a better round next time. I got down to the wire and didn't want to forfeit... So I just hastily hashed my round 2 together.

The best of luck to you! By the way, I would appreciate if you at least give a day before posting your round 3. My grandmother is having some... Difficulties, and I live with her to help take care of her. That's why I haven't been able to really work on this.

Thanks in advance, I do intend to make this a quality debate in our last two rounds. And for your "sequel" debate that you mentioned... I may be willing to do that. I would probably want to wait until this semester is fully done with. My hands have been much fuller than I thought they would be!

All the best,
Posted by THsea 11 months ago
Hey S4C, just a heads up... I'll try to get my first round in tomorrow evening (the next day at the latest). I have family visiting for Thanksgiving, but I think I can still give you a good debate. I haven't gotten out my KJV Bible in a while! This should be nostalgic and fun.

Looking forward to a fun, and friendly time! Good luck to you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wipefeetnmat 10 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Now this is what real debate looks like! I believe Con was unfair in his claims that Pro's rebuttals were "silly". I thought most of them were definitely reasonable, however, Con points out a seeming contradiction in round 4 that Pro completely ignores. I am unsure whether he just forgot or did not have a legitimate rebuttal but, per the rules of the debate, Con must only provide a seeming contradiction that Pro does not provide a reasonable rebuttal to. Argument goes to Con. Conduct goes to Pro since Con became petty in round 4 by not reading Pro's rebuttal.