The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Emilrose
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

u cannot find three bible verses that contradict each other

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 1 vote the winner is...
Emilrose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 421 times Debate No: 82220
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

people often say the bible is full of contradiction. i'd like to test that thesis.
Emilrose

Con

Accepted.

==Opening Case==

Pro asserts in their resolution that you 'cannot' find three Bible verses that contradict each other, however in displaying Bible verses that *very* obviously do, this is easily negated. As Con I will assume that Pro is referring to the Christian Bible, so will thus use verse[s] from both testaments.

To offer some *clarification* of the debate, definitions of the term 'contradict':

1. to assert the opposite of a statement or an idea put forward.

2. to be contrary with; be inconsistent with.

So as not to confuse any readers, I will use two verses [each] contradicting one another in a numerical order.

Biblical verse:

[1.] Exodus 20:13--'Thou shalt not kill.'

Samual 6:19--'The people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter.'

[2.] Genesis 32:30:--'And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel; for I have seen God face-to-face, and my life is preserved.'

John 1:18:--'No man hath seen God at any time.'

[3.] John 5:1--'if I bear witness on myself, my witness is not true.'

John 8:18--'I am the one that bear witness on myself.'

[4.] Matthew 2:1--' On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.'

Luke 2:7--And she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.'

[5.] John 10:30-- 'I and my father are one.'

John 14:20--'I go into my father, for my father is greater than I.'

These are just but a few of the Biblical verses that openly contradict themselves, and of course, Pro has been shown that there exists more than three.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

1. killing isn't necessarily wrong, it's a general command. no one says you can't kill to defend the innocent. or for a righteous cause.

2. this one might work, but it's the only one that i count. the apologetics that i read seem pretty weak on this supposed contradiction.

3. Jesus says his father bears witness to him, so he's not alone in bearing withness. that is in chapter 8. in chapter 5 he says john bears witness so again he doesn't bear withness to himself alone.

4. a manger can be in a house. it's a lot to nit pick on the word house too, stretching things beyond what's reasonable. plus on looking at matthew 2 it doesn't say what you say it does. you must have a typo.

5. jesus is describing a mystic union. you can say you are one and not the same if you are talking mystically. if Jesus is love incarnate, and God is love, it would be fair to say they are one but not necessarily the same, for example.
Emilrose

Con

Rebuttals:

'killing isn't necessarily wrong, it's a general command. no one says you can't kill to defend the innocent. or for a righteous cause.'

In the commandments [as given to Moses] is explicitly states 'thou shalt not kill'. Thus, a verse in which God is advocating killing is an obvious contradiction.

'this one might work, but it's the only one that i count. the apologetics that i read seem pretty weak on this supposed contradiction.'

In that case, Pro concedes that the verse is in fact a contradiction and fails to offer any additional explanation for it.

'Jesus says his father bears witness to him, so he's not alone in bearing withness. that is in chapter 8. in chapter 5 he says john bears witness so again he doesn't bear withness to himself alone.'

Pro has *not* provided any source[s] in support of this, therefore it is simply their own personal interpretation.

'a manger can be in a house. it's a lot to nit pick on the word house too, stretching things beyond what's reasonable. plus on looking at matthew 2 it doesn't say what you say it does. you must have a typo.'

All verses come directly from the Christian Bible, so absolutely no typing errors have been made. As can be evidenced in the verse, explicitly different words for Jesus' supposed birthplace are used--thus making it a 'contradiction', a brief look at the definitions provided are confirmation of this.

'jesus is describing a mystic union. you can say you are one and not the same if you are talking mystically. if Jesus is love incarnate, and God is love, it would be fair to say they are one but not necessarily the same, for example.'

Once again, no source[s] have been used so this is exclusively Pros *own* interpretation. Pro did not make any reference to the *context* that may actually be behind Biblical verses in round one, therefore when assessing this verse with the verse I compared it with, it IS a contradiction.

Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con would have been better to find additional contradictions to meet the three quota, but chose to defend the ones she listed. that was her problem.

1. it basically says thou shalt not murder. or kill wrongfully, whatever that means. con is being unreasonable to be so literal for something that is not meant to be taken that way.

3. i gave context to the quotes and gave the verses from where the context came from, the sources.

4. again, to be clear, matthew 2 doesn't say what you said it does. you cited the wrong verse. i dont know if the actual word is house or something else. and again, a manger can be in a house. there is no contradiction.

5. i gave my own interpretation, no sources are needed. con is being unreasonable in what to expect from such mystical langauge
Emilrose

Con

Additional Rebuttals:

'con would have been better to find additional contradictions to meet the three quota, but chose to defend the ones she listed. that was her problem.'

Incorrect. It explicitly states in Pro's resolution that Con is required to find three Bible verses that contradict one another. In actual fact I provided a number of eight separate Bible verses that actually contradict each other. If Pro had intended for Con to post more in the second round [which in normal debate settings, is meant for rebuttals] then they should have originally highlighted this. So therefore, it is their problem. Pro him/herself even notes that they 'don't know' what these verses mean which adds credence to my point[s] regarding the lack of clarity in their case.

'it basically says thou shalt not murder. or kill wrongfully, whatever that means. con is being unreasonable to be so literal for something that is not meant to be taken that way.'

Pros own interpretation again--in additional, she/he has entirely ignored my point that the two verses when compared together absolutely do contradict each other. Once again, Pro made no mention of the context that *may* be behind certain verses, thus these verses are to be taken as they appear to be; which is contradictory.

'i gave context to the quotes and gave the verses from where the context came from, the sources.'

It was not 'context' that Pro provided, but their opinion. Moreover NO sources have been used in support of their position. If Pro had a source, then naturally they should have displayed it. As with all the other errors in their case, this is their own fault.

'again, to be clear, matthew 2 doesn't say what you said it does. you cited the wrong verse. i dont know if the actual word is house or something else. and again, a manger can be in a house. there is no contradiction.'

A look at the two verses together confirms that there is indeed a contradiction, and Pro has failed to prove otherwise, Simply stating there isn't does not classify as a valid rebuttal or more specifically *negate* my argument. A house and a manger are clearly two difference things, and the verses are clearly two different accounts.

==Conclusion==

Pro has ultimately failed to meet their BoP and adequately show that the [eight] verses provided do not contradict one another--as well as not defining their terms in round one. By 'defining terms' I mean that Pro made no reference to context and was exclusively asking for three verses that appeared to contradict each other, and additionally that they made no reference to any so-called 'mystical language' that supposedly exists in the Bible; another thing that they failed to expound on or include any evidence of.

Therefore, vote CON.






Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by KingofEverything 1 year ago
KingofEverything
How does Dairygirl4uc2 have the most losses? Her arguments are not great, but I have seen far worse.
Posted by BaxterDebate 1 year ago
BaxterDebate
[5] John 14:20 "On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you,"?

You mean John 14:28 ""You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

At the time of this writing, Jesus was a man (and God) and had not yet died and rose in his Glorified body. So yes, The Father was greater than he was at that time. (Philippians 2:7 "Rather, he [Jesus] made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.")
Posted by BaxterDebate 1 year ago
BaxterDebate
[1] Samual 6:19 "But God struck down some of the inhabitants of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them," --The Ten commandments were written by God for the Hebrew people coming up out of Egypt. They were also given Laws about Corporal punishment for breaking the law. God commanded them not to touch the Ark or look inside of it. These men broke the law, and God struck them dead as was the punishment. I don"t see any contradiction here.

[2] Jacob wrestled with God, who came to him in the form of a man. (Gen 32:24) John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." Speaks of God in his full glory. You would have done better trying to use, Gen Where God walked among them (Adam and Eve) in the garden. Again he masked his Glory and manifesting himself in the physical realm.

[3] John 8:14 "Jesus answered, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me." --If you are going to cherry pick your proofs, it is invalid.
Posted by BaxterDebate 1 year ago
BaxterDebate
Matt 2:1 speaks of the Magi from the east that came to see Jesus; it does not say that they arrived on the day of his birth. They saw his star at the time of his birth, and followed it to Bethlehem, traveling via caravan. That takes time. In fact, Herod upon interviewing them; orders all the male children 2 years and under to be killed. (Matt 2:16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.) This indicates that Jesus falls within this age. That leaves plenty of time for them to move into a house. In Luke, it is speaking of the day of his birth, where he was born in a stable, and placed in a manger.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
I have virtually no interest in debating you on this subject and don't actually have any specific opinion on the matter.

The fact is that Pro explicitly asks for (their) opponent to present three verses that contradict one another, which I absolutely have done

As can be seen in round one--Pro did not include any terms for the debate *or* indeed say anything about context, which is her fault entirely and thus makes the debate easy to win.
Posted by HardRockHallelujah 1 year ago
HardRockHallelujah
And if you think that your so called "contradictions" hold any water, then debate me on this very subject.
Posted by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
Get lost.
Posted by HardRockHallelujah 1 year ago
HardRockHallelujah
Wow... I must say if this is the best that Con can come up with in bringing up supposed Bible contradictions than she has failed, miserably. If she actually read everything she was quoting IN CONTEXT and not taking snippets of passages out of context, everyone one of her so called contradictions evaporate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
dairygirl4u2cEmilroseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Emilrose, you such a bully. In any case, con uses the Bible itself to show that it contradicts itself, while pro only uses her interpretations which don't really work out well.