The Instigator
vardas0antras
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Con (against)
Winning
48 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 13 votes the winner is...
m93samman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,076 times Debate No: 13399
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (13)

 

vardas0antras

Pro

Because Im new to this, I ask my opponent to present only 5 contradictions.
m93samman

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate and look forward to an interesting one.

-----Content-----

o Definitions
o Observation/Overview
o Contradictions
o Sources

-------------------

o Definitions

Bible: the sacred writings of the Christian religions [1]

Contradiction: a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other [2]

o Observation/Overview

For the debate, my opponent has requested that I present only 5. I will try to make them diverse in their type. Of the kinds of contradictions, there are (for the sake of Biblical contradictions): scientific, historical, internal, logical, and numerical.

A scientific contradiction will be one that contradicts any fact that has been proven scientifically. A historical contradiction is a contradiction in which an indisputable historical event is denied or inconsistent with the Bible. An internal contradiction will be any two verses or parts of the Bible that are incompatible with one another. A logical contradiction is one that simply makes no sense, such as "Rain makes me dry." A numerical contradiction is one in which two presented figures regarding the same issue are inequivalent. Let's begin.

o Contradictions

1. Scientific

According to the Bible, the Earth that we live on is 6,000 years old, give or take. The reasoning is explained here [3]. Modern science shows us, through many justifications, that the earth is, at the very least, 3 billion years old [4 - 6]. I would hope that all those biblical scholars claiming that fossils are just a "practical joke being played by God" are joking...

2. Historical

According to Joshua 8, the Canaanite city Ai was burned into a heap and destroyed; archeology has failed to confirm this. As a matter of fact, archeology has verified that Ai was burned, in 2400B.C.- Over a thousand years before Joshua's time anyways. "Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer" [7, 8]. Who are we to believe? A generally questioned set of contradictory witness accounts or verifiable archeological studies?

3. Internal

If there are identical passages within the same "inspired word of God", there is a problem, especially if it came from two different witnesses. In 2 Kings 19, Isaiah 37, read closely [9 - 11]. They seem to be identical to me, within the NIV. Was there plagiarism? Clearly, someone blatantly copied someone else's account. Can we nail this plagiarism on the door of God?

4. Logical

God and the Devil/Satan are clearly not equivalent, unless you're a radical, head-over-toes Satanist who worships Satan as God. There's a problem with this in the Bible, though [12 - 14]. Apparently, EITHER God or Satan inspired David in fighting Israel. I hope that my opponent finds it as blasphemous as I do to say that.

5. Numerical

There are tens of numerical contradictions in the Bible, but I will only present one, so as to meet my opponent's criterion. In reference to Solomon's palace, there is consensus that it was "an hand breadth, wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers and lilies. But how many baths? According to I Kings 7:26, 2000 baths. But then, a 50% exaggeration by II Chronicles 4:5, who claims 3,000! [15 - 17]

I would like to present more, but we'll keep it to this for my opponent. I appreciate the opportunity to debate this, and look forward to my opponent's response.

o Sources

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://www.albatrus.org...

[4] http://www.talkorigins.org...

[5] http://pubs.usgs.gov...

[6] http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com...

[7] (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added)

[8] http://www.theskepticalreview.com...

[9] http://www.biblegateway.com...

[10] http://www.biblegateway.com...

[11] (Is the Bible God's Word?, Ahmed Deedat, p.31-33; International Islamic Publishing House)

[12] http://www.biblegateway.com...

[13] http://www.biblegateway.com...

[14] (Is the Bible God's Word?, Ahmed Deedat, p.34-36; International Islamic Publishing House)

[15] http://www.biblegateway.com...

[16] http://www.biblegateway.com...

[17] (Is the Bible God's Word?, Ahmed Deedat, p.41-42; International Islamic Publishing House)
Debate Round No. 1
vardas0antras

Pro

Id like to thank Con for accepting my challenge and for his patience because I am a very very slow debater.

1.Scientific
The Bible never says the age of the earth.Usshers chronology only tells us the age of human existence(note:Usshers chronology isn't precise nor is it accepted by everyone)!As you can see here:http://www.answersingenesis.org.... That should be enough but what about Christians?The impression i get from the internet is that most Christians are old earth creationists.Here is an example of what they believe:http://godandscience.org... other group which is less popular are called theistic evolutionists.This is what they believe:http://www.theisticevolution.org... of these groups reject a 6000 years old earth.The group which does accept a 6000 years old earth are called young earth creationists.They are not crazy nor are they illogical (although in this group there are countless "scientists" who use pseudo science and facts.Science is one of my weaker subjects but i think this website shows that young earth creationists aren't unscientific:http://www.gotquestions.org.... In conclusion the bible never states the age of the earth and Christians are accord with "modern science" (theistic evolutionists completely but young earth creationists only microscopically however this doesn't mean that they're definitely wrong).
2.Historical
Sadly you made the same mistake twice.The bible never says when the Canaanite city Ai was destroyed.We do have a traditional biblical chronology but this is man made hence this isn't a mistake made by the bible but by man.This website presents a view which doesnt contradict "verifiable archeological studies":http://www.biblicalchronologist.org... this isnt the only explanantion
"The alternative proposal is that the
Bible's chronology of events is accurate, and the Biblical Ai is
not to be located at et-Tell, but a different site entirely. Dr. Bryant Wood has proposed
that Ai should instead be located at the site of Kirbet el-Maqatir arguing that the
evidence for this site being Ai is stronger than at et-Tell."http://en.wikipedia.org...(Bible).
I also took my time to ask other people what they think and this is their typical response "Historic: Once again carbon dating is not accurate to say that Ai was burned down in 2400 b.c." and "What this means is that the city excavated was **probably** not the city of Ai described in the Bible as being destroyed by Joshua (it does not prove it)". If you can prove that all those 4 responses are incorrect then this is a bible contradiction (unless proven otherwise but it wont be me hence you'll win the debate).
3.Internal
This is a great response i found:"Now we must also point out the purpose of the two books.
The book of Isaiah purpose was different than the author of 2 Kings.
Isaiahs book Is about Isreal's and judah's coming destruction and restoration through Gods suffering servant.He lived during the reign of four kings and the last one was Hezekiah.
for a clue as to what time he was living in he chronicled the life of that king.
That's just like me writing a book about my life in 2008 and having a brief portion on
the election and term of Barak Obama, because It is a monumental event in the historical background of my life. Now the book of 2 Kings sole purpose was to highlight the lives of the kings of Isreal, and they give a historical account of every king. Now its clear to see that the author copied it from Isaiah but that is no different than me writing a book about John F. Kennedy and copying some information out of his Biography, It does not add or take away from the fact that the event happened.
So now one may ask the question, what was the purpose of God for allowing two identical accounts to be inserted into the Bible? If you were to read the bible you would discover this one thing about God, that if he is redundant about something, it is not a mistake, he is emphasizing the importance of the event because it can help change our lives."The original response can be found here:http://walkaway.aimoo.com....
Note:Some argued that this isn't a contradiction because of their idea of inspired word of God.I agree.
Note:if you can prove that this information is incorrect then you still dont win because i have constructed a different answer the problem is that its not complete and unless you can prove otherwise i simply cant bother.
4.Logical
"The anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David": The translators of the New King James Version believe that "He" in this sentence applies to God, because they capitalize it. Yet 1 Chronicles 21:1 tells us, Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. The best explanation is that Satan moved David and is the "he" of 2 Samuel 24:1. Yet the LORD expressly allowed it as a chastisement against David.

i. "Now the 'he' there, we assume would be the Lord. But as we find out in 1 Chronicles, chapter one, it was Satan that moved David's heart, to the numbering of the people. So God opened the door, and allowed Satan to move in and tempt David." (Smith)
This is from:http://enduringword.com...
5.Numerical
"The two accounts do not disagree – you have over looked the exact wording in the KJV.

1 Kings 7:26
And it was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was fashioned like the brim of a cup, with a bud of a lily. It CONTAINED two thousand baths.

Tells us how much was in the container.

2 Chronicles 4:5
And its thickness was a handbreadth, and its brim like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies. It received and HELD three thousand baths.

Tells us how much the container would hold.

So how is this contradiction?

Another explanation is as follows, taken from Adam Clarke's commentary on the Bible

2 Chronicels 4:5
It - held three thousand baths - In 1Ki_7:26, it is said to hold only two thousand baths. As this book was written after the Babylonish captivity, it is very possible that reference is here made to the Babylonish bath which might have been less than the Jewish. We have already seen that the cubit of Moses, or of the ancient Hebrews, was longer than the Babylonish by one palm; see on 2Ch_3:3 (note). It might be the same with the measures of capacity; so that two thousand of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to three thousand of those used after the captivity. The Targum cuts the knot by saying, "It received three thousand baths of dry measure, and held two thousand of liquid measure.

Taken from the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge which offers a similar thought -

2 Chronicels 4:5
three thousand baths: In the parallel passage, it is said to hold only two thousand baths; which some think may be reconciled by supposing that the quantity of water which was commonly in it was 2,000 baths, but that, if filled up to the top, it would hold 3,000. But, as we have already seen that the Babylonish cubit was less than that of the ancient Hebrews, it might be the same with measures of capacity; so that 2,000 of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to 3,000 of those used after the captivity. The Targum cuts the knot: "It received 3,000 baths of dry measure, and held 2,000 of liquid measure." See note on 1Ki_7:26. 1Ki_7:26"Bible Student from answers.yahoo.com
m93samman

Con

I thank my opponent for his response, and assure him that my patience won't run dry.

I also wish him luck, just because that's a nice thing to do.

-----Content-----

o Contradictions
o Source(s)

-------------------

o Contradictions

1. Scientific

Before I begin debate, I'd like to point out that the "godandscience.org" and the "theisticevolution.org" links are broken.

Anyways, Pro begins refuting this point by saying that the Bible "never says the age of the earth." I agree, it never EXPLICITLY spells out that the earth is 6,000 years old. But, if you put 1 and 1 together, you get 6000. Wait... No. If you put together 390 and 40 and 37 and 479 and 430 and 75 and 290 and 1656, THEN you get approximately 6000. But rest assured, 1 and 1 is still 2. Meanwhile, if you look to the first source my opponent provides and you analyze the graph carefully, you will see that even his source points to the fact that Genesis claims earth was created approximately 4000BC [1] <---- My opponent's source, captured on paint and edited to be more clear.

2. Historical

r1. "We do have a traditional biblical chronology but this is man made hence this isn't a mistake made by the bible but by man." I wrote a book one time, and I made a mistake in my book, but the book isn't wrong because I made the mistake so the book isn't wrong wait WHAT?
r2. Your link is broken.
r3. The biblical Ai is not to be where the biblical Ai really isn't, is basically what was said here. That makes no sense. The Hiroshima found in history textbooks isn't to be found where Hiroshima is in our history textbooks, but 13 miles due West. Does that make sense? Extend my argument.
r4. My opponent proceeds to claim that carbon dating is not accurate, no warrant given. Extend my argument until reasoning is given.

3. Internal

To sum it all up, it is for emphasis. Hmm... Plagiarism for emphasis. I presume that I'm not the only one having trouble buying this argument.
Moreover, the example given about my opponent writing a biography and then citing Barack Obama's election doesn't apply because they are two different books, and he would quote the election in his book. A more pertinent example would be something like me writing a biography and then quoting a chapter of my biography in my biography for emphasis. For example, I explain how when I was young, I learned about basketball. Then, I joined a national Syrian basketball league and play for them. Then "I explain how when I was young, I learned about basketball." That's what happens in the bible.
Further, my opponent states it "does not add or take away from the fact that the event happened." It's still an internal contradiction; for sacred writings to be plagiarized would have several implications.
A) There was no divine inspiration, just a covering up of sources.
B) There is potential that many stories were inspired by each other in the bible.
C) The fact that a man copied another man's writing detracts from the credibility of the copier.

4. Logical

My opponent copy-pasted his response; anyways, I find it hard that God himself would open the door for SATAN to do his work. It remains a contradiction there, and in that he says "translators of the NKJV BELIEVE..." This is only one group's explanation, but it is not universally agreed upon. There is no consensus upon the resolution of this contradiction; the burden of proof has shifted regarding this specific point.

5. Numerical

Contained two thousand baths versus held three thousand baths, i.e. dry measure versus liquid measure. I'm not understanding this very well; if my opponent could explain it better I would appreciate it. I still contend that it is a contradiction, though, because my opponent did not refute my sources, BOTH OF WHICH use the word "held"; neither used "contained".

The contradictions stand, the resolution is

AFFIRMED

o Source(s)

[1] http://i54.tinypic.com...

~~~Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 2
vardas0antras

Pro

Although its exhausting im glad im finished and i cant say i didnt have fun (seeing how you contradicted yourself).Also good luck except with the part where you contradict yourself,i dont want it to be refuted! :)

1.Scientific

Now that I have examined the previous rounds many times - I have to say that the easiest way for me to refute this "contradiction" is by saying two words:theistic evolution.They are Christians (not necessarily) who believe in everything evolution teaches (including the age of the earth) but reject the belief in no God.There are other ways of refuting this "contradiction"(for example old earth creationists, you can go to godandscience.org) but i want to have this "contradiction" refuted in this round in the simplest way possible.

You may still insist that Usshers chronology tells us the age of the earth but my answer is still the same "Usshers chronology only tells us the age of human existence".However young earth creationists claim that the earth was created in 6 literal days meaning that this world is 6000 years old.The Bible makes no such claim.The problem you have isn't with the bible but with the young earth creationists (more detail about them can be found in gotquestions.org just type in "young earth creationists").
2.Historical

"We do have a traditional biblical chronology but this is man made hence this isn't a mistake made by the bible but by man." I wrote a book one time, and I made a mistake in my book, but the book isn't wrong because I made the mistake so the book isn't wrong wait WHAT?"

Clarification:" Traditional biblical chronology" is a reference to Usshers chronology (or any other similar type)

Which according to this website is inaccurate(http://www.biblicalchronologist.org....).If this website is right and Usshers chronology is inaccurate then your argument is invalid because
"There is clear archaeological evidence from et-Tell of the biblical Conquest at Ai. The evidence was not recognized by the original excavators, however, because the traditional biblical chronology upon which they were relying misdated the Conquest by a full millennium."http://www.biblicalchronologist.org....

I did give more arguments "the Biblical Ai is
not to be located at et-Tell, but a different site entirely. Dr. Bryant Wood has proposed
that Ai should instead be located at the site of Kirbet el-Maqatir arguing that the
evidence for this site being Ai is stronger than at et-Tell."http://en.wikipedia.org......(Bible).This argument is valid because were never given a map by the author but only a description.

You have to first prove that Usshers chronology is accurate and that the chronology the website presents is inaccurate.
Then you have to prove that the city Ai was located at et-tell.
3.Internal

"To sum it all up, it is for emphasis."

No to sum it all up 2 Kings sole purpose was to highlight the lives of the kings of Isreal meaning (read the example given in the previous round) that this doesn't contradict the idea that bible is inspired by God.

That response (previous round) also explains why God would let two identical accounts be written (emphasis).Also the example is pertinent because The Holy Bible is a collection of books and not a one big book.
4.Logical

"I find it hard that God himself would open the door for SATAN to do his work."That just proves that you haven't studied the bible.God controls Satan for his own purpose for example read the book of Job.

Also you contradicted yourself "God and the Devil/Satan are clearly not equivalent" but now youre implying that God wouldn't let Satan do his work if he could?So is God more powerful than Satan or not?If Satan is more powerful then at what point did created beings had the ability to exceed their creators?

"This is only one group's explanation" Yes it is.So can you prove them wrong or is this not a contradiction?
5.Numerical
To be honest I prefer to always use the KJV over NIV:http://av1611.com...
Here are few answers I found but they obviously dont use the NIV version:
http://www.rationalresponders.com...
http://www.godrules.net...
(This means that this version is widely rejected now im not an expert but i do trust experts and experienced Christians)
In short NIV isnt a good bible version.

Thats the main idea of the alternative explanation:" It might be the same with the measures of capacity; so that two thousand of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to three thousand of those used after the captivity" and
"so that 2,000 of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to 3,000 of those used after the captivity."

So you have two things to prove: 1)NIV is correct in its translation
2)The measure of capacity didnt change after the captivity
m93samman

Con

To begin, I apologize for my lack of knowledge on Christianity. College has not allowed me to have the time to fill up the missing gaps of information I have; I'm purely debating and not doing any research so as to save time.

Let's begin.

-----Content-----

o Definitional Observations
o Arguments
o Sources
o PS (for my opponent)
-------------------

o Definitional Observations

My opponent attempts to, several times, sidestep my arguments by jumping around to different sects of Christianity and different versions of the bible. His burden in this round as pro is to prove the resolution true, the resolution being "There are no contradictions in the bible." The bible was defined in round 1 as "the sacred writings of the Christian religions"; this went unrefuted. Thus, my opponent has to defend ALL the sacred writings of ALL the Christian religions; if he was to invalidate any single version such as the NIV it is his burden to do so. Meanwhile, my arguments will remain valid.

Moreover, as a contradiction is "a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions", my opponent encounters yet another problem. Different version of the bible represent different "propositions" for translations, and my opponent claims that the bible is a "collection of books". Thus, if there is an incompatibility between any different versions of the bible it is STILL my opponents burden to defend them; sidestepping them won't work in this debate. It may have if he participated in the provision and debate of definitions, but it is too late to do that.

o Arguments

1. Scientific

"Theistic evolution" is my opponents first response to this. He doesn't go into detail but he says that they believe both in evolution and God, of course, with the bible. For this claim to be upheld my opponent needs to prove how evolution can occur in 6000 years.

He moves on and says Usshers chronology only tells us the age of human existence, but I found likewise [1 - 3]. All of these sources shows that, according to Usshers chronology, CREATION was 4004 BC. Even according to Young Earth Creationists (YEC), the earth is likely less that 10,000 years old [4]. And finally, remember that my opponent has to defend ALL of the Christian religions, as he tacitly conceded the definition debate.

~~~~Basically, just to be lenient, I request that my opponent find a biblical interpretation that finds the earth to be over 100,000 years old. Still extremely young, but it's a stepping stone. YET, don't drop the resolutional analysis~~~~

2. Historical

This is a quote from his source.

"""

Ai was the second city Joshua's army attacked during the Conquest. The ruins of this city are a mound known to archaeology as et-Tell. A few individuals have questioned this identification, motivated by the fact that the archaeology at et-Tell at the traditional date for the Conquest does not fit the biblical account of the Conquest at all. However, the geography and topography of et-Tell closely match the biblical description of Ai.

...

CONCLUSION

There is clear archaeological evidence from et-Tell of the biblical Conquest at Ai. The evidence was not recognized by the original excavators, however, because the TRADITIONAL BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY upon which they were relying misdated the Conquest by a full millennium.

"""
My opponent, again, has to defend "the bible".

3. Internal

To my statement "To sum it all up, it is for emphasis", my opponent responded "No to sum it all up 2 Kings sole purpose was to highlight the lives of the kings of Isreal" (S&G error, plus a failure).

I'll let this one be up to the readers; answer the question and judge: Is there any way you would believe that a 'divinely-inspired book' would contain an obvious case of plagiarism? If you answer no, don't vote pro. If you answer yes, I guess I'll have to drop this argument.

4. Logical

I agree; I haven't studied the bible. But prima facie, anyone would agree that there is an inherent contradiction. Moreover, my argument was misconstrued. The contradiction he says I make isn't really there; my argument was that God wouldn't order an evil creation that is Satan to do his work for him. Why? Hmm... Isn't Satan the one that tricked Adam into eating that apple? It would seem that Satan is a deceptive little devil to me.

5. Numerical

My opponent prefers KJV over NIV. That isn't my problem to deal with; he said there are no contradictions in "the bible", I defined "the bible", he agreed to my definition of "the bible", and now he wants a different bible? Nah, he has to defend NIV, just like I explained before.

Unless he can convincingly justify the fact that the NIV should be ENTIRELY rejected in the face of all of its millions of users, this argument stands. The resolution is negated, with characters to spare.

o Sources

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://gospelpedlar.com...

[3] http://www.bibleword.org...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

o PS

If you like, as you get more and more used to debate we can have another debate with no constraints. I'm not the person to copy and paste verses to provide contradictions, but so far in this debate I've had over 2500 spare characters, which I feel could be used more optimally.
Debate Round No. 3
vardas0antras

Pro

Before i begin i like to thank you for choosing various subjects (I planned to say that at the start but I failed 3 times in a row).Also could you respond after theres only few hours left because i wont be able to use the internet until Tuesday. I appreciate your quick responses but this time a very slow response or a withheld response would do a lot of good.

1.Scientific

"~~~~Basically, just to be lenient, I request that my opponent find a biblical interpretation that finds the earth to be over 100,000 years old. Still extremely young, but it's a stepping stone. YET, don't drop the resolutional analysis~~~~"

Here are biblical interpretations that make the earth over 100,000 years old:
Day-Age theory:
"day-age" interpretation of Genesis one - that is, that each "day" is actually a long period of time during which God created life. This interpretation is not figurative in any way, but adheres to the scientific method in its analysis of the biblical texts. At its foundation is a literal translation of the Hebrew word, yom, which can mean a twelve hour period of time, a twenty-four hour period of time, or a long, indefinite period of time.
and this is how they defend their belief:http://godandscience.org...
Gap theory:
This view states that life was immediately and recently created on a pre-existing old Earth. One variant rests on a rendering of Genesis 1:1-2 as:
"In the beginning ... [when] the earth became formless and void." (It is argued that the word 'was', hayah, can also be correctly translated as 'became'.)
This is taken by Gap creationists to imply that the earth already existed, but had passed into decay during an earlier age of existence, and was now being "shaped anew". This view is more consistent with mainstream science with respect to the age of the Earth

"Even according to Young Earth Creationists (YEC), the earth is likely less that 10,000 years old" Young earth creationists are called young earth creationists because they believe in a young earth for example 6000 years but there are other groups like old earth creationists who believe in a old earth.

"And finally, remember that my opponent has to defend ALL of the Christian religions" I said the bible has no contradictions wherefore I dont have to defend all Christian religions.So I dont have to defend religions/beliefs which assert something that is not in the bible for example the age of the earth and you can use Usshers chronology but all you can prove is that mankind lived about 6000 years.Now you can say that "according to Usshers chronology, CREATION was 4004 BC" but thats only from the young earth creationists viewpoint because they believe that the earth was created in six literal days.

In conclusion you have to prove that Day-Age theory, Gap theory and other interpretations which reject young earth creationism must be wrong.
2.Historical

No this time Im not defending the bible but I will quote what I said before.
1)"Clarification:" Traditional biblical chronology" is a reference to Usshers chronology (or any other similar type)"
2)"Which according to this website is inaccurate(http://www.biblicalchronologist.org.......).If this website is right and Usshers chronology is inaccurate then your argument is invalid"
3)"Dr. Bryant Wood has proposed
that Ai should instead be located at the site of Kirbet el-Maqatir arguing that the
evidence for this site being Ai is stronger than at et-Tell."http://en.wikipedia.org.........(Bible).This argument is valid because were never given a map by the author but only a description."Although there is evidence for et-Tell "This argument is valid because were never given a map by the author but only a description".
4)"You have to first prove that Usshers chronology is accurate and that the chronology the website presents is inaccurate.
Then you have to prove that the city Ai was located at et-tell."You've failed to prove this although you did try to prove that the city of Ai was located at et-Tell.
3.Internal

I suppose I should do the same.However I cant because you claim that this is an example of plagiarism.

Also one is a history book, 2 Kings, maybe written by Jeremiah, the other, Isaiah lived the events. So, separated by decades, Jeremiah would quote the source he could rely on.
The Bible was complied over a 1500 year period by over 40 authors. That more then one of them repeat a source quoted by someone else was not unusual. Remember that each of the books was composed as a separate book, and not complied into a single volume until centuries later. So each author designed his book to "stand alone". So it was only logical that after 36 chapters of warning, Isaiah would want to include the fulfillment of his prophecies.

Have two authors repeat the same story word for word and it is "plagiarism". Yet let two authors retell the stories with the slightest different between them, and then it is "contradictions" and "mistakes". Which want do you want it?
4.Logical

No theres no contradiction only your lack of understanding.This subject is best explored in the book of Job.
In round one there was a contradiction "Apparently, EITHER God or Satan inspired David in fighting Israel."I refuted this contradiction but now you say that your argument is "my argument was that God wouldn't order an evil creation that is Satan to do his work for him" however the book of Job refutes this because the whole book is about Job being tempted by Satan with Gods permission.Im not here to lecture you about why would God do this although I can but i will refute any contradiction you present.There are two more rounds and Ill be gone until Tuesday so you have plenty of time and space to show me how is God ordering Satan a contradiction.

"Isn't Satan the one that tricked Adam into eating that apple? It would seem that Satan is a deceptive little devil to me." Are you saying that Christian God according to the bible isnt all powerful...Please be more clear in the next round.
5.Numerical

No your argument doesn't stand until you prove that the measure of capacity didnt change after the captivity as I stated in the previous round.

However I will prove that NIV translation is incorrect concerning 1 Kings 7:26!...Hopefully :)

I have e-Sword which anyone can download for free(just type e-Sword in google.com).If you go to 1 Kings 7:26 you'll see that the Hebrew word (which KJV translated as contained and NIV translated as held) is
"כּוּל
k�l
kool
A primitive root; properly to keep in; hence to measure; figuratively to maintain (in various senses): - (be able to, can) abide, bear, comprehend, contain, feed, forbearing, guide, hold (-ing in), nourish (-er), be present, make provision, receive, sustain, provide sustenance (victuals)." e-Sword definition of כּוּל.Now the other word in the other quote which both versions translated as "held" is כּוּל k�l kool.Yes its the same Hebrew word.Meaning that the word contain for 1 Kings 7:26 should be used because otherwise theres a contradiction.Lets say the word qwer could be defined as 5 and ten.If previously qwer meant 5 and theres another sentence which would make sense if you use 10 would a good translation use 5 again?no.

Vote Pro!

753 remaining characters
m93samman

Con

I hope my opponent can respond my time. I'll post as close to my time limit as possible.

1. Scientific

Now we've begun to make some progress. Yom can symbolize anything from 12 hours to an indefinite period of time. If it took the "indefinite" period of time, I would argue there is a new contradiction presented- that is, if it takes a relatively indefinite period of time for Yahweh to complete each step of creation, it would seem he isn't omnipotent. Why would it take that long for God to create anything?

The second part regarding Gap creationists is unclear to me, this is just a question to my opponent. Did the earth already exist and THEN God created everything, or did God create everything, and then earth decayed, and THEN humans were placed on earth? I just want to better understand the chronology before I can respond.

"I said the bible has no contradictions wherefore I dont have to defend all Christian religions.So I dont have to defend religions/beliefs which assert something that is not in the bible..."

Ehh... I haven't provided anything that isn't a biblical contradiction. And biblical contradictions apply to ALL Christian religions, so you do have to defend all of them. That is simply a burden that you didn't recognize when you instigated this debate.

2. Historical

"2. If Usshers chronology is inaccurate then your argument is invalid."

Unfortunately, there are believers who follow Usshers chronology. It is my opponents burden to prove it as inaccurate (which shouldn't be too difficult anyways). But in my opinion, the contradiction will remain after he does that, because if he resolves the problem with Usshers CHRONOLOGY, he will have fixed the discrepancy in time. But, that leaves the biblical location in contradiction with the historical location.

3. Internal

I continue to find it difficult that there is BOLDFACED PLAGIARISM in the Divinely inspired book of God. How is that something you can even allow through your brain?! To all the readers; we, the debaters, seem to have reached an impasse as to what is acceptable. My opponent believes that plagiarism within the holy book of God is not problematic; I find it problematic to accept it. I urge a con vote, for it is absurd to believe that God would allow two DIFFERENT "inspired authors" of his book to have identical passages, implying one having plagiarized the other.

4. Logical

God commanded that Adam and Eve live in the garden and eat anything BUT from *points at a tree* "THAT TREE." Satan tempted Adam to, and they were punished.

Is that sufficient to explain why it doesn't make sense that God and Satan would work together? Satan is treacherous, deceptive, and amoral.

5. Numerical

I'm having trouble following the organization, but I'm not Hebrew expert. If that's the case, I guess I'll have to drop this argument. I'd appreciate if my opponent takes the time to organize that paragraph better.

To conclude, my opponent has been unintentionally missing the bullseye. He has been making arguments and hitting around that area, but he will never nail it if he doesn't address the argument in conjuction with fulfilling his burden of proof. I guess 5000 yards is just too far of a target? Hahaha... extended metaphors.

I urge the voters to tie whatever logical ends can be tied together and~

VOTE CON

4672 Characters Remaining at the start of this sentence.
Debate Round No. 4
vardas0antras

Pro

Id like to thank m93samman for his time,effort and patience.This debate has been truly challenging.

1.Scientific
a)You begin by dealing with the day-age theory.You accept this as a possibility hence a win.
a1)We're debating bible contradictions and not the infinite mind of God."Why would it take that long for God to create anything?" Feel free to discuss this with me but this question is inappropriate for this debate.
a2)Website which you should visit to understand this view: http://godandscience.org...
a3)Isaiah 55:9
b)The Gap Theory holds that the ages of evolution (the periods and eras of "modern science") occurred before the six days of biblical Creation, but were part of the creative process of God. These ages were then terminated by a global cataclysmic event, followed by a period of replenishing the earth, according to the following instructions of God in Genesis: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:28 KJV).
c)"Ehh... I haven't provided anything that isn't a biblical contradiction."Yes you have!The age of the earth according to the Bible might be anything above 6000 (mankind existed for about 6000 years according to Usshers chronology).

Conclusion: You must prove that the young earth creationists are right and all other groups which interpret the bible differently are wrong. If you can do this then we can say that the Bible most likely says that the earth is 6000 years old.

2.Historical
a)Heres a link which proves Usshers chronology to be incorrect: http://www.scribd.com...
b)"There is clear archaeological evidence from et-Tell of the biblical Conquest at Ai"m93samman
b1)http://www.biblicalchronologist.org...
b2)This doesn't mean that its an established fact that biblical conquest happened at et-Tell but its a probability.
c)"But, that leaves the biblical location in contradiction with the historical location."You have the burden of proof.What artifact at et-Tell disproves the biblical conquest of Ai?Even if there is the bible still doesn't contradict history because we don't know if the city of Ai was located at et-Tell.

Conclusion:I have proven Usshers chronology to be incorrect hence theres no contradiction.There is a contradiction if you can prove me that the biblical conquest happened in et-Tell (according to the bible) and if you then give me evidence which tells us that the biblical conquest couldnt have happened at et-Tell.

3.Internal

a)You haven failed to refute the examples given in round 2 and 4.You tried to refute the example given in round 2 "Moreover, the example given about my opponent writing a biography and then citing Barack Obama's election doesn't apply because they are two different books".However the Bible is a collection of books written by different authors at different times at different locations.I expand on this idea in the second example.Wherefore theres no contradiction.
b)"How is that something you can even allow through your brain?!"Read the arguments in the link below.
c)http://www.echoofeden.com...

Conclusion:It isn't plagiarism, because nobody involved in the writing took any credit for the account. The concept of intellectual property is VERY recent - in the ancient world, the goal was not to collect royalties or build a career, but to record knowledge.
Most likely Isaiah was the source document for the II Kings compilation. See also the last chapter of 2 Chronicles and the corresponding passage in Jeremiah.

4.Logical
a)The original argument has been refuted "Apparently, EITHER God or Satan inspired David in fighting Israel"
b)"Is that sufficient to explain why it doesn't make sense that God and Satan would work together? Satan is treacherous, deceptive, and amoral."God is almighty and Satan cant do anything without Gods permission hence i win.However I think you wont give up this argument so i quote "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."Isaiah 55:9.

Conclusion: You've presented no contradiction concerning this section with the exception of round 1.

5.Numerical
a)"To conclude, my opponent has been unintentionally missing the bullseye."m93samman
b)Ive proven that the NIV translation is incorrect concerning this issue but that if we take the correct translation of KJV theres no contradiction.

Conclusion:The NIV translation is incorrect.This is an example explaining why its incorrect ".Lets say the word qwer could be defined as 5 and ten.If previously qwer meant 5 and theres another sentence which would make sense if you use 10 would a good translation use 5 again?".The NIV says yes hence the contradiction but KJV says no wherefore we have no contradiction.Also Ive completely ignored "the measure of capacity changed after the captivity" argument because I dont have to regard this in order to prove my point.

Points I find interesting or amusing:
1.I would have said that the NIV translation is correct (and not KJV) if I had chosen to expand on the
"the measure of capacity changed after the captivity" argument.
2.If the measure of capacity changed i win because theres no contradiction but if it didn't then i still win because
that means the NIV translation concerning this issue is incorrect as I have proven (same word is used which has more then one meaning hence you must translate in a way that doesn't cause contradictions,see the example i gave)
3.The contradiction you made still exists because you were implying that God cant control Satan by "Isn't Satan the one that tricked Adam into eating that apple?" but before that you said "God and the Devil/Satan are clearly not equivalent".
4.You seem to get more and more emotional concerning the "Internal" section.Read again what you wrote and then try to tell me that you didn't go from cool and composed style to a style where I can almost hear you speak.
5.Concerning the scientific section the two interpretations were already present in the first round (the links i provided)
6.I was supposed to respond in Tuesday and not Monday but I completely fail at understand my families plans (not only that I thought that will be going to Riga and not somewhere else XD).

Vote Pro
m93samman

Con

I thank my opponent for what has been an enlightening debate, and for being prepared to debate a topic like this. I'll keep this more of an observational round because my opponent won't have a chance to refute my claims.

1. Scientific

My opponent has sufficiently refuted this point on his interpretive grounds. It remains up to the voters, whether they believe that denying Ussher's chronology is a defense of "the Bible" in its entirety.

2. Historical

I feel like this point has become the grayest of gray area. The bible DOES claim that 'x' event happened, and it didn't according to archaeology. I'll leave it up to the voters.

3. Internal

This is a quote from his source. "...in the ancient world, this was not the moral or ethical dilemna it would be today. The opposite was the case. Originality was not necessarily a virtue. Writing and editing texts was a specialized art and being able to precisely copy something else or draw on a vast storage of shared literary heritage was considered participating in high craftsmanship."

Just because the morality of an issue has changed (which I disagree with, being a moral absolutist with an appreciation for relativism), it doesn't mean it makes sense to us now. We don't live in those times anymore, so it is hard to accept plagiarism as "Okay".

4. Logical

"God is almighty and Satan cant do anything without Gods permission hence i win."
"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

For the first quote, again, my contention was that Satan's deceptiveness (such as in the story of Adam and Eve) would make it difficult to reconcile.

As regarding the second, assuming "my" refers to Him, or God, "your ways" would seem to refer to God's creations, Satan included. I don't see why that refutes the point, Satan remains deceptive.

5. Numerical

If the voters agree that NIV is incorrect, I guess the point is null, then. But given there are millions who read the NIV, I doubt that you can simply invalidate it. Again, the definition of "Bible" given at the top of the round was the sacred writing*S* of the Christian religion*S*. Thus, I contend that it was my opponent's burden to defend the NIV, not reject it.

---

In conclusion, I urge the voters to vote Con because there is no logical way to believe in Biblical inerrancy.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"Mob mentality"
XD
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Mob mentality
Posted by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
I can't believe pro actually got points....
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Thank you for the correction.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
@LiquidLiquid: fast* reader
Posted by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
Yes I read the whole thing. I'm a real quick reader.
Posted by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
Yeah, there's no way i'm reading all that. I give both of you an A for effort though, and truly hope that i never have to debate you where sheer quantity of verbiage would be considered a point of merit.
Posted by Sonofkong 6 years ago
Sonofkong
It is not proven fact that the snake tricking eve was Satan.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
@Marauder: I do realize that I'm not the most knowledgeable on Christian scriptures, but I do know for a fact that validly claiming biblical inerrancy is impossible.
Posted by Zerglingleader 6 years ago
Zerglingleader
Con's weakness of knowledge in some instances is meaningless to me. The CLAIM was "There are no contradictions in the bible." It's a bold claim. it's also an ultimatum. It doesn't matter if Pro proves 99 out of 100 contradictions false, he still loses. this is a clear and cut victory for Con.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Palestine92 6 years ago
Palestine92
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vania.Ruiz 6 years ago
Vania.Ruiz
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by PrvnMthws 6 years ago
PrvnMthws
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 6 years ago
jjmd280
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ls4baseball 6 years ago
Ls4baseball
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by EnlightenedEntity 6 years ago
EnlightenedEntity
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:25 
Vote Placed by vervatos 6 years ago
vervatos
vardas0antrasm93sammanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07