The Instigator
Zigzag15
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Mr.Speaker
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

There is at least one contradiction in the Bible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Zigzag15
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 357 times Debate No: 85506
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

Zigzag15

Pro

I will argue that there is at least one contradiction in the Bible.

Contradiction - a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true.

R1 - Acceptance and intro
Mr.Speaker

Con

I gladly accept this debate because it's about biblical authority.

I contend that the Bible - properly understood - does not contradict itself once.

Now, the debate resolution does not impose on me the onus of proving the entire Bible accurate. This is unfeasible precisely because there is neither enough time nor space in this online debate format to fulfill such a responsibility. Furthermore, since much of the Bible relies on faith, I cannot prove what cannot yet be verified.

Rather, PRO must satisfactorily show that there is one instance of contradiction in the Bible. I, as CON, will attempt to prove that PRO's instance(s) can be reconciled with the rest of the Bible. This is the burden of proof.

I thank my opponent, PRO, for offering this debate. I hope that PRO will be a reliable adversary, unlike my previous ones.

With my introduction concluded, I await PRO's first argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Zigzag15

Pro

My argument is as follows: there is at least one contradiction in the bible and to prove this two scriptures will be observed.

2 Kings 8:26 says, "Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother"s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel." (NKJV)

2 Chronicles 22:2 says, "Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mothers name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri. (NKJV)

These scriptures are describing the same situation and thus the contradiction lies with the age of Ahaziah when he became king. Was he twenty-two or forty-two? When observing the Hebrew for the age in 2 Kings 8:26, the term esriym is used meaning "twenty," but in 2 Chronicles 22:2 the Hebrew is arbaiym meaning "forty" (the Hebrew for "two" is the same in both verses). In describing the same situation, he cannot be both ages.

If we read 2 Kings 8:17 it tells us Ahaziah"s father was thirty-two years old when he became king and reigned eight years, making him forty. It is not possible for the father"s reign to end at age forty and then his son, Ahaziah, to take over being forty-two; this would make him older than his father. The number forty-two cannot be right.

For the same situation two different ages are given, which could not be possible and thus this qualifies as a contradiction.
Mr.Speaker

Con

I must preface my argument by admitting that I am not a biblical scholar. In fact, theology tends to confuse me, which is why I seldom participate in religious debates. But one quality of an educated man is his willingness to debate the merits of new ideas. With that said, I now proceed to my one argument.

1. 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 2 Kings 8:26 are different perspectives of the same account.

In lieu of submitting a lengthy explanation, I will offer instead an exhaustive study that I found on the internet:

http://theoldtestamenttimeline.com...

I found the author's argument to be very convincing of why there is no contradiction.
Basically, the idea is that Ahaziah reigned as a prince at age twenty-two before becoming a full-fledged king at forty-two.
Please read it for yourself, especially the last two pages about accuracy.

Since there are more debate rounds, I will provide more evidence later if demanded by PRO.
Thanks; sorry for my underwhelming participation.

- Mr. Speaker
Debate Round No. 2
Zigzag15

Pro

The document you posted says a lot and thus I will not be able to address everything but will hopefully do enough to cast doubt on his argument.

1. First of all, the writer starts with this comment: "Our rule for Biblical
interpretation must be that the scriptures are without error, and contain no
contradictions " therefore, any seeming contradiction is usually a result of our failure to
perfectly understand" (pg. 1). The issue with this statement is that this writer possesses a hermeneutic that does not allow for contradictions. If you start with a belief that contradictions don"t exist, then even if there is one, you won"t see it. This is important to note however I deal with his main argument below.

2. His main point uses the wrong translation of the Hebrew in 2 Chronicles 22:9. As he says on page 5, "He is the son of Jehoshaphat"" is actually ""He is the grandson of Jehoshaphat"" (ESV). Hebrew uses the same word for both son and grandson, but if you go back to 2 Chronicles 21 it is laid out clearly: Jehoshaphat was father to Jehoram who was father to Ahaziah. That would make Jehoshaphat his grandfather.
3. The writer states that "The surest means for Athaliah to gain power would be through marriage" (page 6). This is speculation that fits his argument. There is nothing to indicate that she in fact did this. Marriage could be used in this way but it is not the only way. He provides no scriptural reference.

4. He again misquotes scripture in trying to make his point, which instead undermines it. 2 Chronicles 22:2 says, ""His mother"s name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri." Omri, as he states on page 6, is not her father but her grandfather. Athaliah is literally, not politically, the daughter of Ahab 2 Chronicles 21:6. This undermines where he goes next.

5. He then sets up a false scenario based off of improper translations stating how Athaliah had Ahaziah with Jehoshaphat but then married Jehoshaphat"s other son later, Jehoram, thus making Ahaziah a step-son, and the possibility of Ahaziah being older than Jehoram, who is his step-father (pages 6-7). This is how the writer makes it possible for Ahaziah to be forty two when he starts his reign yet be older than his father (or as he says, step-father). Athaliah is not, as he says, Ahab"s brother but Ahab is her father.

This then leads to the fact that because of the writers improper translation of "father" instead of "grandfather" this cannot be true: "Thus, Ahaziah could have began to reign at twenty-two years of age, not in the sense of being the sole monarch over Judah and reigning from Jerusalem, but probably in the sense of being named the direct successor of Jehoshaphat, as a crowned prince" (page 8). He is not a direct successor nor a crowned prince after his "father" Jehoshaphat because that is his grandfather. His real father Jehoram is next in line.

There are more problems with this but hopefully the point has been made. The rebuttal falls apart because this whole position uses the wrong translation of Scripture to make his point and thus set up a false scenario of how these two Scriptures don"t contradict. I do not see how this reconciles the two Scriptures.
Mr.Speaker

Con

PRO,

I have been very busy these last three days. I haven't had a time to research and respond.
I apologize for my failure, but I will not forfeit. Please allow me to rebut fully in Round 4.

Thanks,

- Mr. Speaker
Debate Round No. 3
Zigzag15

Pro

I understand your situation.

Let me also add then the following points against your position.

1. This link also proves the "father" "grandfather" mix up that your position takes. [1]

2. If your position is right, why do the new bible translations of the NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, etc., change what is blatantly "forty two" in Hebrew to "twenty-two?" If your position is correct, or even some variance of it, they would explain the numerical problem away in the commentary of study bibles (or in other ways). Instead, they change the translation. Thoughts?

[1] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...
Mr.Speaker

Con

After further research, I could not find any additional arguments or supporting evidences for my position. I admit and concede that PRO is correct that there is at least one contradiction in the Bible.

I congratulate you on your victory, sir. Bravo!

Thanks for a good round.

- Mr. Speaker
Debate Round No. 4
Zigzag15

Pro

Con has conceded that Pro is correct in claiming that there is at least one contradiction in the Bible.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Valkrin// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments), 1 point to Con (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Con.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Conceded debates are not moderated unless the voter affords more points to the conceding side.
************************************************************************
Posted by Mr.Speaker 1 year ago
Mr.Speaker
Great argument PRO! I look forward to rebutting it.
Posted by ViceRegent 1 year ago
ViceRegent
Only in the minds of fools.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
Zigzag15Mr.SpeakerTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes his case. Thus Pro wins by default
Vote Placed by Valkrin 1 year ago
Valkrin
Zigzag15Mr.SpeakerTied
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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession by Con.