The Instigator
JMan1424
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Teaparty1
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There are no 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/26/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 78147
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

JMan1424

Pro

I will be defending the position that there are no contradictions and errors in the Bible whatsoever. I will be using the good old King James Version and perhaps a few others to defend my point and I expect my opponent to do likewise. Thank you for accepting this debate and topic and may the best argument win.
Teaparty1

Con

My opponent is allowing me to present arguments first, so here we go.

First, in Exodus 20:4 is says, "You shall not make yourself a carved image nor any likeness of that which is in the heavens above..." Then, in the very same book of Exodus, 25:18 says, "You shall make two Cherubims of gold." Making Cherubims seems to contradict the first verse, as the Cherubims were statues of two angels, who are in the heavens above.

Here is a picture of the biblical account of Cherubims so you can see the carved image for yourself.


The next apparent contradiction is (James 1:13) "...for God can not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man"
But, in Genesis 22:1, "...after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." It would seem that God does in fact tempeth some men, as he tempted Abraham.

Third, there seems to be a contradiction on if man can hear God's voice. John 5:37 says, "...Ye have neither heard [God's] voice at any time..." The problem is, Genesis 3:9 and 10 say, "And the lord called unto Adam, and said unto him, were art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid..."

The fourth contradiction is as follows. Galatians 4:22: "...Abraham had two sons; one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman." Abraham's first son was Ishmael, and 13 years later he had Isaac. (Hebrews 11:17) "By faith Abraham, ...offered up Isaac, ...his only begotten son." Even if you say that the second verse meant that it was Abraham's only begotten son at the time he offered up Isaac, that would still be false because his son Ishmael was older than his son Isaac.

There are plenty more contradictions within the bible, but I'll leave it at that for now.
Debate Round No. 1
JMan1424

Pro

Thank you very much for accepting this debate and I wish you the best of luck!

First I'd like to start off with Exodus 24 and Exodus 25:18. Exodus 24:4 says "Thou shalt no make UNTO THEE any graven image"..... Well the first thing we need to notice is the big UNTO THEE which means to not make any graven image to yourself and your desires. Making images unto yourself is another way of saying don't make images, such as idols, to yourself and your own needs. Unto Thee means worship and reverance many other times in Scripture so all we have to do is put 2 and 2 together. The rest of the verse also reads " Thou shalt not bow thyself to them nor serve them for I The Lord thy God am a jealous God." This points back to the fact that unto thee was referring to bowing down and serving images.

Second we have the issue of whether or not God can tempt a man or not. Well the Hebrew word nacah which is rightfully translated as tempt can mean test, try, prove and tempt. In this way we see that Abrahams test of Faith matches up with the word try or prove.

Third, it seems you didn't quote John 5:37 correctly. The verse actually says that no man has heard the FATHER. It doesn't say God it says Father. Now, according to Scripture God is one yet has 3 distinct persons who are God the Son( Jesus) God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. No many has heard God te Father, but men have heard the Holy Ghost and the Son. And considering that it says God came down and WALKED with Adam and Eve we can tell that this was the Preincarnate God the Son(Jesus.)

And lastly we have an apparent contradiction of sons, or is it?
Truly, we can say that Isaac was the only begotten son, but Ishmael was also a son. We need to realize that Isaac was the promised son that God would give him, while Ishmael was a son born from another woman to fulfill Abrahams promise in vain. So we see that Isaac was the Legitimate son while Ishmael was a bastard child. Another point to make is that Ishmael may have been a son of flesh, but Isaac was the son given to. Abraham in a spiritual promise in the form of Israel. Therefore he was the only Begotten son by God's standards. It goes hand in hand with Gideon who has 70 sons while he also had one son from his Concubine. But that one son is never counted in the 70 sons. The same thing goes with these verses.

I'll turn it back over to you. Good luck
Teaparty1

Con

Rebuttals

1) I concede this point. If the words "unto thee" mean for your own use or desires, than the graven Cherubs would not fit into the prohibition of not making a graven image.

2) Apparently the KJV chose the wrong word, and they should have said "testeth" instead of "tempteth" to match the hebrew, but I'll assume your translation of "nacah," and concede this point.

3) I concede this point.

4) "Isaac was the only begotten son" "by God's standards"
Begotten- Past particple of beget, Beget- bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.
I'm not sure how you know what God's standards of "begotten" are, but unless his standard of it is a different deffinition of the word, Ishmael was begotten. The verse doesn't say, "his only holy son" or "his only son begotten to him that fulfilled a promise," it just says, "...his only begotten son."

More Contradictions/Errors

1) John 3:13 KJ translation- "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." In Kings 2 (old testament) 2:11 it says, "and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind." That seems to be a direct contradiction.

2) Another problem with the above verse (John 3:13), is that it says, "...even the son of man which is in heaven." If heaven is above us, how could the son of man have gotten there without ascending?


3) Matthew 20:20-21 read: "Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. And he(Jesus) said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom." Later, in Mark chapter 10, verses 35, 36,and 37 read, "
And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. So who requested that the sons would sit in the kingdom? Was it the mother, or was it James and John?

4) In Matthew 21:2-7, Jesus told two disciples to bring him an a(beep)ss and a colt. In Mark 11:2-7 when the story is related, it only mentions a colt, "ye shall find a colt tied..." In Matthew, Jesus wanted an a(no profanities)ss, but Mark has no a(potty mouth)ss!

5) In John 13:27 Satan entered Judas while he was at the supper. In Luke 22:3 it appears that Satan entered Judas before the supper happened.

Back to you.

Debate Round No. 2
JMan1424

Pro

Actually they were indeed correct in saying temp because tempt itself means to test the strength of, so this shows that these words can in fact be used interchangeably. Today we think of temptation as a bad thing, but that wasn't always so. There is such thing as good temptation( Tested) and bad temptation( Deceived.) In this way we see that the KJV guys translated the exact word of nacah to tempt, while modern translators clarify this by saying test, therefore they are one and the same.

Once again, when it comes to only begotten son, this is how you distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children as seen in Gal. 4:4-7. Begotten sons are those sired by a mans lawful wife. Mark 10:6-9 establishes that a man should only have one wife which is from whom such a son is begotten. The same distinction is made between Adam who is called a son of God and Jesus who is called only begotten Son of God. In other words Adam was called a son of God because he was created, but only Jesus was the begotten Son of God. Besides this, Isaac and Jesus are the only people referred to as only begotten sons. This is because just as Isaac carried wood to his own death so did Jesus carry the cross to his. Just as Isaac never doubted his father, neither did Christ doubt his. And lastly, just as Isaac walked down that mountain alive, so did Jesus walk out of that grave alive.

Now we have the supposed issue of who can ascend. After all, didn't Enoch and Elijah both ascend to heaven? Well the simple answer is no they didn't. It's quite clear that for someone to ascend to heaven they have to do so with their own power after all that is what ascend actually means. It says they were CARRIED UP into heaven, but they didn't ascend. It also says that at the mount of olives that Jesus was carried up, but don't let this disturb you because we also know that Jesus ascended himself to heaven on the morning of His Ressurection in John 20:17.

Also I saw you mention John 3:13 which could easily be talking about the future when he'll be there after he's ascended, the fact that he is there since it's his dwelling place and home, and the fact that the Son of Man is God which means he is not limited to one place or time. Any of these can easily make sense.

As for whether is was the mother or the 2 sons this can be resolved very easily. We see that James, John, and their Mother Salome came to Jesus. Mathew reports that Salmome asked Jesus to favor the sons while Mark writes that James and John asked him. Mathew says Salome went with them, so it is likely that all 3 shared their own cases. Mathew reported Salmomes statement while Mark gave us James and Johns. In another way it may have been Salome who accompanied them and gave them the desire to say it.

Mark, Luke, and John all refer to a single colt, a young donkey. They don't claim the fullfillment of Zechariah 9:9, but Mathew claims fullfillment where he mentions 2 animals the colt and its mare. Of all animals in the Earth Ex. 13:1: shows that only the donkey needs it. The donkey, besides the serpent, is also the only animal said to speak to a man in Scripture. In Job we find a personification of "For vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild donkeys colt. All these and several others show that the donkey has a special relationship to mans salvation. So it's that Zechariah mentions the King coming with salvation. Zechariah says the King is lowly, Mathew says Meek, but Mathew doesn't mention the Salvation or Justice. Will there be another fullfillment at the second coming when the East Gate is reopened? The colt Jesus rode was never ridden before. It was most likely the first born and redeemed. Practically speaking, the Mare would never let the colt go without a fuss so it's possible that she came along too. It's clear that Mark, Luke, and John say that Jesus rode the colt. Mathew, being the book written to the Jews and worried most about prophecy, mentioned the mares presence and thus the problem is solved.

As for when Satan came to Judas we can honestly say before the supper and during. Satan and devils in general always go back and forth and as we can see, Satan came to Judas a long time before the supper when Judas made deals with the temple authorities, and then he came upon him during the supper very quickly. Too put it bluntly, Satan is way to busy trying to stop God to indwell a man for that long and always goes back and forth doing his dirty business.

Thanks back to you
Teaparty1

Con

Rebuttals

I checked Gal 4:4-7 and did not see anything refuting the definition of begotten I posted, nor did I see anything about legitimately or illegitimately begotten sons. Regardless, the fact remains: The verse says, "By faith Abraham, ...offered up Isaac, ...his only begotten son." Its quite telling that other translations of the verse (Hebrews 11:17) just say, "his only son." You're trying to make this work by changing the definition of begotten.

"Elijah went up..." It does not say "carried up" The hebrew word used in that verse is "vaya'al" or "ויעל." The word means "and he went up" which is essentially the same thing as ascended.

Errors

John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished': and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Luke 23:46 "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit': and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." In the first verse his last words were, "it is finished," in the second, his last words were, "I commend my spirit."

Matthew 12:30 "He that is not with me is against me..." Mark 9:40 "For he that is not against us is on our part." Luke 9:50 "And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us" Are those that are not with Jesus for or against him?

Thats is all for this round. Your turn.


Debate Round No. 3
JMan1424

Pro

Galatians 4:4-7 shows that we( Christians) are all sons of God, but at the same time there is only One Son of God or begotten Son. You say that other translations render it only son and your absolutely right. Now you know why I asked you to stick with the KJV :). Well I would disagree that I'm changing the definition of begotten, because I'm only telling you the Biblical definition and not modern definition (Historical Context!)

No No No! Ascending is not the same thing as being carried up/ Going up. Ascending is where you take YOURSELF up by your own power. And yes he actually was carried up. You'll realize that he was carried up by a chariot of fire. If your being taken up by a chariot of fire, then that chariot is obviously carrying you up, and your not ascending. It's as simple as that.

Now imagine for a second that a man for into a car accident. 2 people run up to him and realizing that he's going to die he tell them to "Tell my wife and children I love them." Soon afterwards a debate arises( Pretty weird debate) over whether his last words were "Tell my Wife I love her," or "Tell my Children I love them." The simple answer is that both are true. In this same way Jesus said both of the things you claimed were a contradiction. We also need to remember that they were his last WORDS as in more than one. So we can safely conclude that what he said went along the borders of "It is finished. Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."

"He that is not with me is against me" and "He that is not against us is for us." What's the problem here? Jesus said that if your not with him then your against him and we see that in Mark 9:40 that they were not against them and therefore they were for him. I literally see a confirmation and not a contradiction here.

Thanks and back to you
Teaparty1

Con

My point about the other translations is that its more it seems likely that the verse did not mean any Biblical or historical definitions of begotten, It probably meant just meant begotten as we know the word today, as in had a child. The other translations just say "his only son.," it shows the verse wasn't attaching any conditions of "holy son" or anything of the like. But even using the KJV, it just says "his only begotten son."

I said ascending is pretty much the same thing as "went up," which is the truth. Again, The hebrew word used in that verse is "vaya'al" or "ויעל." That is the exact word used multiple times throughout the bible to say someone is going up by their own will. One example: Genesis 26:23; " ויעל משם באר שבע" Which is translated, (KJV) "And [isaac] went up from thence to Beersheba."

I would agree with your argument, someone's last words could have been confused or misheard. Or he could have said both in sucession. The problem is, isn't this the word of God? God should know exactly what his last words were, not have two different things quoted as being his last words.

Thanks, back to you.
Debate Round No. 4
JMan1424

Pro

JMan1424 forfeited this round.
Teaparty1

Con

Well, Jman1424, thanks for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by JMan1424 2 years ago
JMan1424
Thank you for accepting. Please abide by my terms if you will and good luck.
Posted by JMan1424 2 years ago
JMan1424
This is round one you may post your argument first
Posted by Teaparty1 2 years ago
Teaparty1
*for acceptance...
Posted by Teaparty1 2 years ago
Teaparty1
OK, is round one or acceptance or arguments?
Posted by JMan1424 2 years ago
JMan1424
Yes Old Testament and New Testament
Posted by Teaparty1 2 years ago
Teaparty1
Does this include the New Testament?
Posted by Addison98 2 years ago
Addison98
This would be a fun debate! However, I agree with pro so joining this debate would pointless.
No votes have been placed for this debate.