The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
MrCarroll
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

There are contradictions in the Bible

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...
kohai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,222 times Debate No: 16371
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

kohai

Pro

I have re-opened my account and shall finnish out this debate.

Debate objectives:

I will attempt to prove that the Bible contains contradictions. My opponent will attempt to refute them.


Debate structure:

Round 1: Acceptance only, no arguments to be added.

Round 2: Opening Arguments (No rebuttals)
Round 3: First rebuttals
Round 4: Final rebuttals
Round 5: Closing arguments

Good luck
MrCarroll

Con

I have never defended this specific objection to the Bible prior to this debate, so I will expect to learn from this. When arguing this topic, I think it is necessary that we understand what contradictions are. It must be understood that some Biblical statements must not be taken out of context. I am hoping that my opponent will be trying to show contradictions within the nature of God or notable events rather than small trivial matters. There are also two Biblical doctrines, inerrancy and infallibility. I will leave it to my opponent what I am upholding in this debate, which is almost definitely inerrancy given the resolution, but I personally adhere to Biblical infallibility.

On the debate structure, I would have the first round include rebuttals on my part since I have no opening argument to give. After all, Pro has the burden of proof to show that there are contradictions in the Bible. If my opponent refuses to allow any response to his argument, I will think of something to write in Round 1. It is after all, his debate so he can structure it as he wants.

Lastly, we must formally define contradiction.

Logical contradiction – an incompatibility between two propositions

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

Good luck to my opponent. I agree with your definition of a contradiction. I ask that you leave an open-mind and I shall do the same.

Contradiction 1: Shape of the Earth?

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

An obvious circle

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.


Contradiction 2: Do you answer a fool?

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conce

Wow! I can't believe how clear of a contradiction that one is. Proverbs 26:4 says Answer not a fool according to his folly, but the VERY NEXT VERSE says Answer a fool according to his folly. I can't see how that is not a contradiction!

Contradictions with science and history.

1. Jesus attempts to teach biology (but is an epic fail!)

Mark 4:31-32 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.

What? Mustard seeds are NOT the smallest in all the earth, nor do they grow up and are greater than all the other herbs. Epic fail!

Back to you, con. I have a ton of more arguments. But since I know it takes a ton of time to refute them, I shall be kind and only list those.

MrCarroll

Con

After looking at each of my opponent's arguments, there is a clear pattern in each one. These three supposed contradictions are all literary devices. Often people point out these literary devices as making the Bible contradictory or unscientific. But everyone uses figures of speech in everyday language and writing. If its summer we might say we are 'roasting,' though not literally. In this round I will show how each of these passages are nothing more that the Hebrew literary method. But first, I would like to let my opponent know that KJV is probably not the optimal version of the Bible for scholarly study or a debate that hinges on the translation. I will use New American Standard Bible for my arguments.

1. Shape of the Earth

Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The 'circle of the earth' could mean one of two things, the earth is spherical or the earth is flat and circular. Given that there is a different word for 'sphere' I would say it means flat and circular. This could be reflective off the culture and science of the time, or this statement could be nothing more than a metaphorical device.
Notice that every description other in this passage is metaphorical. Does God sit above the circle of the earth? Do humans look like grasshoppers? Did God stretch the heavens out like taffy? Are they like a tent? Etc. These are all metaphors and simile. Isaiah is one of the most symbolic books of the Bible; it is apparent Isaiah was not trying to be a geologist.

The second passage is similar, after all, Jesus constantly speaks in parables and hyperbole. And Jesus naturally would have relayed this event to Matthew and His other disciples. Even if the earth was flat, one could not see all its kingdoms from a mountain, and such a tall mountain doesn't even exist. This is not literal then. Naturally, Jesus would have explained the story in a manner the disciples could comprehend. It was as if He was looking from a very tall mountain onto all the earth. I'm sure that is what the disciples got out of it, and to say that this is another metaphorical device would certainly make sense. There were non-literal statements in other verses of the same story.

2. Do you answer a fool?

This is one of my favorite proverbs mainly because of the clever play on words used here. Answer not a fool according to his folly, means don't let a fool bring you down to their level in an argument. The next verse is not contradictory but complimentary. For a better understanding of its literal translation let's look in the NASB version:

Proverbs 26:4-5 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes.

This is not telling us to avoid the remarks of a fool, just not according to his own foolishness. Some arguments are bad, therefore we shouldn't go along with the bad argument getting all worked up about nonsense. Often, all the fool wants is to get you frustrated and make you look like an idiot. This applies to debating. Off the top of my head I can remember a debate where I completely failed at this.

3. Contradictions with science and history

Jesus attempts to teach biology? First of all, the point of the parable is obviously not meant to teach these people biology. He's simply exaggerating elements to strengthen the allegorical significance of the parable. It's hyperbole. If my opponent would like me to give all the reasons He chose a mustard tree, I can go over them or we may move on.

Pro claims he has 'tons of more arguments.' However, I would be surprised if he had more than 2,000, so I will suggest that he makes sure they are not just arguments regarding literary devices. So far, I feel like I have simply explained the meaning of the Bible, yet perhaps that is all that necessary to win the debate. I await Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

I thank my opponent for a great 1st round! Good luck in the rest!

The 'circle of the earth' could mean one of two things, the earth is spherical or the earth is flat and circular. Given that there is a different word for 'sphere' I would say it means flat and circular. This could be reflective off the culture and science of the time, or this statement could be nothing more than a metaphorical device.

Let me break this argument down.

1. If it was flat and spherical, it contradicts with science. Science is superior to the Bible. How can an all-knowing God have inspired something in the Bible that was wrong? After all, "All scripture is given by the inspiration of God."

2. If it was spherical, then it contradicts the other verse because the other verse is giving a flat-earth. On a spherical surface, it is impossible to see the entire earth from a high point. If you want to say that it was magical or whatever, fine, then why did they have to go to the high place in the first place? Didn't that mean Jesus sinned by listening to Satan by allowing himself to be taken up into a high mountain? If you say that Satan only showed Jesus part of the Earth, then the other part is contradicted when it says, "ALL THE KINGDOMS OF THE EARTH"

Jesus attempts to teach biology? First of all, the point of the parable is obviously not meant to teach these people biology. He's simply exaggerating elements to strengthen the allegorical significance of the parable. It's hyperbole. If my opponent would like me to give all the reasons He chose a mustard tree, I can go over them or we may move on.

I understand the point wasn't to teach biology. If he is exaggerating or a hyperbole, why would he make a seemingly contradictory statement to what we know is true.

More contradictions with science, mathematics and history

1. The Bible says the earth does NOT move!
“The Lord is king. He is clothed wit majesty and strength, The earth is set firmly in place and cannot be moved.” (psalms 93:1)

“Say among the nations,”The Lord reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the people with equity.”(Psalms 96:10)

“tremble before him, all the earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved.”( 1st Chronicles 16:30)

Sorry, but the Earth is rotating!

2. The Bible says that the heaven i.e. sky has got pillars!

"The pillars of heaven tremble, and are astonished at his reproof.”(Job 26:11)"

What hogwash! Even a doofus can see that the sky does not have pillars supporting it.

I understand that this is a debate about contradictions in the Bible. However, these are specifically contradictions to science, which of course, are contradictions.

Verses that contradict itself


1. Was John the Baptist Elias? (Elijah)

A. Yes

And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come Matthew 11:14

B. No

And they asked him, what then? Art thou Elias? And he said I am not." John l:21

2. Does evil happen to the just?

There shall no evil happen to the just.
- Proverbs 12:21

Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
- Hebrews 12:6

Hebrews 12:6 may seem to say that he corrects or punnishes the Christians. However, evil has happened to the just (i.e. Job)

Back to my opponent.






MrCarroll

Con

1. Circle of the earth

a. I broke down the verse in Isaiah and explained the possibilities which were (1) this was a scientific statement (2) this was a metaphor. I explained why it was more reasonable to believe this is a metaphor given that the rest of the verse (and the rest of Isaiah) is metaphors and simile. Isaiah is probably conveying the appearance of the horizon. From a human perspective, one may look 360° around and see a flat and circular landscape. Isaiah is not trying to convey the geological structure of the earth.

b. In the last round, I concluded that this account of Jesus and Satan is probably not literal either. Firstly, it's illogical that Jesus could have literally seen all the earth from a mountain. Secondly, Jesus often speaks in parables. Thirdly, however Jesus actually did see all the earth would be so unexplainable in human terms it must be done in a way the disciples could understand. Its true in a symbolic sense and not a literal sense. Evidence for this can be found in Luke which tells the same story more literally:

And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. (Luke 4:5)

Obviously this feat is not possible by physical means. The reason why Luke doesn't say anything about a mountain is becuase Luke was looking for the literal facts. Matthew is far more symbolic as evident in Matthew's account of the same story.

2. The parable of the mustard seed

Here is a better way to understand this. The smallest seed on the 1st century farm was a mustard seed. The seed grew to be one of the largest herb-like plants. So in context, yes, the mustard seed was the smallest seed and largest herb.

3. The earth does not move

Consider the phrase, "the sun rises early in the morning." Does the sun actually rise? Isn't that statement contradicting science? Actually, this is just a figure of speech. I would like my opponent to prove that these verses are not merely using figures of speech relative to that period.

4. The Bible says that heaven has got pillars

I think this an extremely obvious example of metaphor. I'm not sure how my opponent perceived this as literal.

5. John the Baptist

Verse in context:
"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come." Matthew 11:13-14

They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." John 1:21

During John's ministry, many thought he was literally Elijah sent directly from Heaven. This was not true. Jesus refers to John as Elijah symbolically. Throughout the Old Testament, there is an astonishing amount of similar symbolism. For example, Joseph can be paralleled to Jesus in at least 200 ways, but they are not literally the same being.

6. Does evil happen to the just?

Finally I am faced with a good question and a significant matter in the Bible. This is the only good argument my opponent has presented so far.

No harm befalls the righteous, but the wicked are filled with trouble. Proverbs 12:21

Hebrews 12:6 speaks of discipline which is not evil so we may disregard this verse. But my opponent brings up Job, one of the more unique characters in the Bible. Job is seemingly a direct contradiction to this proverb, but it is actually an exception.

exception – an instance that does not conform to a rule or generalization

Pro's argument comes form a misinterpretation of the book of Proverbs, which consists of a number of general statements. For example, Prov. 20:13 says, do not love sleep, or you will become poor. This is a general statement, but there are exceptions. Not everyone who sleeps too much is poor, but generally the lazy are poorer than those who work hard. Likewise, the righteous will generally be protected by God. There are exceptions such as Job. Here, at Satan's request, God tested the righteous man to see if Job really loved and trusted God.
In everyday speech and writing, general statements are made. For example, teachers say, 'if you work hard in school, you will get good grades." This is a true statement for the most part, only there are exceptions. A person could have a mental disability and get bad grades despite their valiant efforts.

I see no reason that the Bible cannot use symbolism, hyperbole, and make general statements like every other book and not be contradictory. People seem to think that if a book is Holy it must be entirely literal, but this is false. So far, the Bible has no true contradictions. We have still only seen one argument pertaining to Christian doctrine, which I would personally like to see more of.
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

I'll admit that so far, this debate isn't going to well for me. Hopefully, that can change. I should have been more prepared.

I broke down the verse in Isaiah and explained the possibilities which were (1) this was a scientific statement (2) this was a metaphor. I explained why it was more reasonable to believe this is a metaphor given that the rest of the verse (and the rest of Isaiah) is metaphors and simile. Isaiah is probably conveying the appearance of the horizon. From a human perspective, one may look 360° around and see a flat and circular landscape. Isaiah is not trying to convey the geological structure of the earth.

You say it is a metaphore. Yet other verses need to be taken seriously and litterally. Who are you to say what is and what isn't the WORD OF GOD? What else is just a metaphore. How can we know the difference between a metaphore and a literal verse.

In the last round, I concluded that this account of Jesus and Satan is probably not literal either. Firstly, it's illogical that Jesus could have literally seen all the earth from a mountain. Secondly, Jesus often speaks in parables. Thirdly, however Jesus actually did see all the earth would be so unexplainable in human terms it must be done in a way the disciples could understand. Its true in a symbolic sense and not a literal sense. Evidence for this can be found in Luke which tells the same story more literally:

And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. (Luke 4:5)

Obviously this feat is not possible by physical means. The reason why Luke doesn't say anything about a mountain is becuase Luke was looking for the literal facts. Matthew is far more symbolic as evident in Matthew's account of the same story.

Again, using the metamorphical argument. Please refer to my last refutation.

Consider the phrase, "the sun rises early in the morning." Does the sun actually rise? Isn't that statement contradicting science? Actually, this is just a figure of speech. I would like my opponent to prove that these verses are not merely using figures of speech relative to that period.

Again. I understand there are things that are figures of speech. But how do we know what is litteral and what is not?

Better contradictions than what I've presented

I feel I done a lowsy job at giving real good proofs for contradictions. So, here are some better ones.

Order of creation

Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:

Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)

Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."

The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:

Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)

The order of events are different

Righteous live?

PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Geneology of Jesus

Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Church apologists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy (Luke 3:23). Christians have had problems reconciling the two genealogies since at least the early fourth century. It was then that Eusebius, a "Church Father," wrote in his The History of the Church, "each believer has been only too eager to dilate at length on these passages."

When was Jesus born?

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.

Historical blunder in the crucifixion

Matthew 27:38 and Mark 15:27 say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers (Luke just calls them criminals; John simply calls them men). It is a historical fact that the Romans did not crucify robbers. Crucifixion was reserved for insurrectionists and rebellious slaves.

Who found the empty tomb?

a. According to Matthew 28:1, only "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary."

b. According to Mark 16:1, "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome."

c. According to Luke 23:55, 24:1 and 24:10, "the women who had come with him out of Galilee." Among these women were "Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James." Luke indicates in verse 24:10 that there were at least two others.

d. According to John 20:1-4, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb alone, saw the stone removed, ran to find Peter, and returned to the tomb with Peter and another disciple.

Rapture failed

There are several passages in the gospels where Jesus says he will return in the disciples' lifetime (Mark 13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, Luke 21:32, etc.).

The same expectation held during the period the apostle Paul wrote his letters. In 1 Corinthians 7:29-31 Paul says that the time is so short that believers should drastically change the way that they live. But Paul had a problem - some believers had died, so what would happen to them when Jesus returned?

Paul's answer in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 shows that Paul expected that at least some of those he was writing to would be alive when Jesus returned - "we who are alive, and remain..." The same passage also indicates that Paul believed that those believers who had died remained "asleep in Jesus" until he returned. However, as the delay in Jesus' return grew longer, the location of Jesus' kingdom shifted from earth to heaven and we later find Paul indicating that when believers die they will immediately "depart and be with Christ" (Philippians 1:23).

It is quite obvious that Jesus never intended to start any type of church structure since he believed he would return very shortly to rule his kingdom in person. It is also quite obvious that Jesus was wrong about when he was coming back.

I understand this is a lot to write. I have given my opponent permission to write in an outside source if needed. Good luck.

MrCarroll

Con

This is a little bit rushed, and since it is, I have been able to fit everything within the character limit.

"Who are you to say what is and what isn't the word of God?" "How can we know the difference between a metaphor and a literal verse?"

The answer is, common sense. For example, we know the phrase, "The pillars of heaven tremble"� is descriptive symbolism because (1) Heaven does not have pillars (2) the rest of the sentence conveys a sense of metaphor. Pillars do not tremble or become scared. We know that the "the rocks will cry out"� is not literal either for similar reasons.

Let's move on to your 'better contradictions.'

1. Order of creation

What we have in Genesis are two chapters entailing the same creation story. One describes the chronology of the actual creation. It is also meant to show the grandness and power of Elohim (it's actually translated as singular in the Bible). The second chapter gives a description of several points in the creation account that would be out of place in chapter one. Its not really meant to be chronological. The second chapter is leading into morality and the fall of man; hence Yahweh is used (referring to the nature and holiness of God).

2. Righteous live

Yes folks, most people will physically die at some point. I see no contradiction.

3. Genealogy of Jesus

There is much uncertainty among Bible scholars on this issue. However, that does not mean archeologists will not find an answer to this in coming years. For the time being, it is theorized that one is Mary's and the other is Joseph's. How can this be considering Luke explicitly started with Joseph? Consider the times and the fact that instead of using the mother's genealogy, authors would traditionally put the father's genealogy. The problem is Jesus was not the physical father of Jesus, so Luke decided to use Mary's genealogy. In accordance with the times, the genealogy was placed under Joseph's name even though it is Mary's genealogy.

4. When was Jesus born?

Many scholars consider Luke to have made an error in this statement. However, there may not actually be an error here. First of all, while it may not be in the Josephus' account, it is theorized that the first census of Quirinius occurred at the time of Jesus' birth and is separate from the first census that is in the archives. My opponent makes it out that, "Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death." Yet Luke does not use the official word for governor, "legatus" but uses "hegemon" which is a broader term that would mean a ruling officer or procurator. At this time, Quirinius may not have been an official governor but would still be in charge of the census. Also, it doesn't make sense to attribute such an error to Luke who was one of the most diligent historians of the time. It is not like him to get such a fact like this wrong.

5. Two robbers

Firstly, I see no source on this 'historical fact.' I am struggling to find this on the internet or anywhere else.

The verses do not say they were only robbers. It is very possible they did other deeds to merit crucifixion. Crucifixion was the worst punishment reserved for non-Romans, and if a non-Roman committed an atrocity that deserved worse than the typical punishment, crucifixion would likely be administered.

6. Who found the empty tomb?

The likely explanation is that Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of James found the empty tomb along with several others. No where does it say that ONLY Mary Magdalene or ONLY the two Marys found the tomb. The other women present were omitted in several cases. But since all these propositions can be true, then we have no contradiction.

7. Rapture

My opponent refers to Mark 13:30, Matthew 24:34, and Luke 21:32 which exclaim that "truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." This may mean that Christ was incorrect in His prediction or it may mean that He was not talking about the disciples themselves. He could be referring to the new generation of Christians in the New Testament church. For example, there may be no more "new covenants" anymore until the end of time. "Generation" might refer to a number of different things. The point is, Jesus made many claims that weren't understood at the time, but turned out to be true prophecies. We may not understand precisely what He is saying here, but that doesn't mean it is a contradiction.
I do not think Paul is referring to the end times in 1 Cor. 7:29-31. Regarding 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, we must remember that the Bible is supposed to be written not just to those who lived at that time but for all times. If we look at this verse as directed to Christians today, it makes perfect sense. He is saying that those who will not be around when Christ returns will remain "asleep in Jesus." This is not much different then being re-united with Christ in Philipians. Paul still holds that the Kingdom of God will come on earth. I do not think my opponent's argument suggests that Jesus never intended to start any type of church, nor does it prove that Jesus was wrong about when he was coming back.
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Pro

I feel I should have been more prepared when going into this debate. I shall better prepare myself the next time I debate this topic.
I would like to congratulate him as I would probably end up loosing this debate--and rightly so.

The answer is, common sense. For example, we know the phrase, "The pillars of heaven tremble"� is descriptive symbolism because (1) Heaven does not have pillars (2) the rest of the sentence conveys a sense of metaphor. Pillars do not tremble or become scared. We know that the "the rocks will cry out"� is not literal either for similar reasons.

Right, but still, there are some verses that clearly aren't allegory that are litteral; but, Christians still take litterally (or vice versa)

What we have in Genesis are two chapters entailing the same creation story. One describes the chronology of the actual creation. It is also meant to show the grandness and power of Elohim (it's actually translated as singular in the Bible). The second chapter gives a description of several points in the creation account that would be out of place in chapter one. Its not really meant to be chronological. The second chapter is leading into morality and the fall of man; hence Yahweh is used (referring to the nature and holiness of God).

We can clearly see that they are NOT the same creation story. Let me show you why

I. When were the animals created?
A. Water (Gen 1:20)
B. The Ground (Gen. 2:19)

Clearly there is a problem here.

Here are some scientific blunders in the creation story.
1. It did not take 6 days to create everything. Rather, it took billions of years from the Big Bang. The universe is 13 byo ish. That being said, there is a contradiction with the age of the universe. Either science is right, or the Bible is right. I believe science is right because we can observe and calculate based off of radiometric dating.

A day is a day in Genesis. There is no gap theory or day-age in Genesis.

2. The Moon is not a light, rather it is a reflection from the sun.

1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. -Book of Genesis.


If you say this was a figure of speach, then why not take the entire creation story as a figure of speach?

3. New stars are constantly being formed.

Even AiG (Answers in Genesis) admits that some parts of stellar evolution occur and are occuring today. (They still can't accept the entire process). Genesis gives us that everything in the universe such as stars, and planets were created in 6 litteral days. Then, why do we see new stars constantly forming? Clearly, there is a contradiction with Science.

4. The firmament?

If such a structure existed as discribed in Gen. 1, then how could we possibly have such a thing as satillites or space travel?

That conlcudes those arguments. Now on to other issues.

Yes folks, most people will physically die at some point. I see no contradiction.

I understand that. However, let us look at the passage in question.

PSA 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

ISA 57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Psalms is saying that the righteous is going to be prospurous during his life. However, Isaiah 57:! says that they perish during life. Obviously, they are speaking about during the lifetime of the righteous. (Again, does it really matter? "There is none righteous, no not one")

Some Christians try to manipulate the text to mean this was the first census while Quirinius was governor and that the first census of Israel recorded by historians took place later. However, the literal meaning is "this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor ..." In any event, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria until well after Herod's death.

MANIPULATE the text? Can the Bible even be maniuplated? Oh, by the way, why is there no historic record about such a census? Do you realise how difficult it would be to send everyone to their own birth place?

If you read Mark 30, you will clearly see that they are talking about the end times.

Generation means just what it says. If you are saying "They were talking about the generation living in the last days" yet people believed that they were in the last days. Also, why did Jesus say THIS GENERATION?

I leave it at that. I wish I would have been more prepared.
MrCarroll

Con

1. Creation story
My opponent contends that there are two separate creation stories, however, I will show this not to be the case. Like I said, only the first chapter is meant to be chronological. Once the chronology of creation was dealt with, the second chapter does not need to go over this again. It's like an intro to the book. The second chapter goes in to the specific details on several points and continues from there.

Scientific blunders
Answers in Genesis will tell you this is the entirely literal account of the beginning of the world. While I do believe there the creation story gives a type of structure and account of some events of the creation story, I think it is hard to conclude it is entirely literal. Remember, we must have some logical reason to say this is not entirely literal. Obviously, there were no witnesses to the creation story, and I think this is a huge evidence that the story is not entirely literal yet definitely God-inspired. The interesting thing about this whole literal, non-literal deal is that if the account is truly literal, then it still consists of no contradictions. For the sake of the debate I will then contend that the creation account was actually literal and explain how it coincides with science.

1. Age of the universe
There are a number of different theories and reasoning behind the age of the universe even if the days are literal days (which I actually don't believe). The most obvious is that the universe could have been created with a sense of age. The dating methods assume that there was no creation, so if we say that the rocks were created with what is considered daughter material, then the dates could very well be incorrect. There's no way of knowing, but this doesn't necessarily prove that the earth is 13 or so billion years. Other theories are that time was not necessarily consistent in different parts of the universe. For more theories, check out AiG or 'The New Creationism' by Paul Garner.
Speaking of the Big Bang, this is simply science's best explanation for the beginning assuming that God doesn't exist. If we assume that God exists, we might just trash the whole concept. Since the Big Bang is nothing more than a theory with some observances that may or may not support it, it is not necessarily true.
With all these matters, radiometric dating must be scrutinized as it is not infallible.

2. The moon is not a light
Does the moon give off light? Yes but not as much as the sun. And I think this is what the Bible is talking about. This is not a very strong case.

3. New stars are constantly being formed
I'm not sure how this contradicts the Bible. Stars are not created from nothing, and the Bible does not say new stars would not develop.

4. The firmament
The structure described in Genesis is guessed to be some kind of cloud covering.

To finish off, I will go over my opponents last few arguments and then conclude the debate.

1. Psalms is stating that the righteous will prosper while alive, yet they will still die like everyone else just like Isaiah explains.

2. Are we manipulating the text or are we trying to figure out what the text is saying? I argue for the latter. We are trying to figure out what event Luke was speaking of when referring to the census. If the Bible is non-contradictory, then this would make sense. My opponent points out that there is no historic record of such census, yet does this prove that there was no census? It is still a very real possibility.

3. My opponent's last points aren't well constructed so I will answer the last question, "Why did Jesus say THIS GENERATION?" I will admit that I am unsure. But this does not mean that there is a contradiction just because we are unsure what Jesus is talking about. It would be very difficult for my opponent to prove this is actually a contradiction given that Jesus does not always explain what He is talking about. He told the disciples several times that He would die and resurrect on the third day, yet they never understood what He was talking about until it happened.

It should be realized that when finding contradictions in the Bible, every supposed contradiction has been explain by Christian apologists. It is a more difficult task to find good contradictions in the Bible then my opponent has assumed. I have refuted each argument my opponent has thrown at me, and because of this, I have won the debate. Thank you for the challenge and thank you for reading this. Please vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
Kohai has participated in committing plagiarism within this debate,

"Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed."

The statement above was stolen from the website below,

http://www.neocrisis.com...
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
I can see why...
Posted by MrCarroll 6 years ago
MrCarroll
I'm not going to lie, I hope someone else votes on this.
Posted by seraine 6 years ago
seraine
How can MrCarrol be losing. I would tip the vote to the rightful way it should be if I had a cell...
Posted by Contradiction 6 years ago
Contradiction
MrCarroll stole the words right out of my mouth. "Logical" is understood in terms of strict coherence, not in a more loosely understood sense of "Conforming to common wisdom."
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
How would it be logical for Jesus to raise himself up?
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"I think you mean defy natural laws. With God I think it would be logical for something supernatural to occur. It would be logical for Jesus to come back to life, yet it wouldn't be natural." This
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Hey MrCarroll, want to debate again another time?
Posted by MrCarroll 6 years ago
MrCarroll
I think you mean defy natural laws. With God I think it would be logical for something supernatural to occur. It would be logical for Jesus to come back to life, yet it wouldn't be natural.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Wow! Defy logic means that it is illogical something could happen (i.e. I start to fly without wings or support)
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
kohaiMrCarrollTied
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: Excellent job by Con in providing context and interpretation. Pro, I would have liked to see you stick to core arguments rather than keep dropping them as they were opposed.
Vote Placed by Aceviper2011 6 years ago
Aceviper2011
kohaiMrCarrollTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: pro did have better conduct arguments, congrats on a good debate. I see when i read that pro had more knowledge and knew more on what his topic was aiming for.