The Instigator
Speedrace
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
killshot
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Bible Has No Contradictions

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 706 times Debate No: 120604
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (0)

 

Speedrace

Pro

I will be arguing that the Bible has no contradictions. Please mainly use the KJV Bible, But other translations can be used for clarification.

This is specifically about the Bible, So any outside source is irrelevant.

Also, Please keep the number of contradictions to a minimum so that I can respond to them all (about 20 or less in the original round and 15 or less in the later rounds because I'll have to disprove those contradictions AND respond to what you say)

Have fun!
killshot

Con

Thanks for the debate :)

I'll keep it simple and just list one since that's all I need to win this debate:

1 Kings 4:26 - And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots…
2 Chronicles 9:25 - And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots…
Debate Round No. 1
Speedrace

Pro

"1 Kings 4:26 - And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots…
2 Chronicles 9:25 - And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots…"


This is quite obviously a transcription error. They've even fixed it in versions such as the NIV.

Allow me to clarify what I mean by contradiction.

Contradiction: the statement of a position opposite to one already made.

Transcription/translation errors do not fit that category.


Nice try, But you're gonna have to try harder than that. :)
killshot

Con

Hahaha, You probably should have clarified that from the beginning.

Ok, Let's tackle the apple! (Genesis 2:16-17 KJV)

I know it's not specifically mentioned as a literal apple, But the forbidden fruit is labeled as such among most contemporary scholars. I will refer to it as the apple, But it could very well be a peach or anything else - it won't affect my argument.

God mentioned that Adam and Eve will die, on the same day, If they eat the apple. They ate it, And lived.

I have seen people argue that Adam and Eve were cursed and no longer immortal, Which is what God meant by dying; however, This is not consistent with literal interpretation. God specifically says "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die".
Debate Round No. 2
Speedrace

Pro

"God mentioned that Adam and Eve will die, on the same day, If they eat the apple. They ate it, And lived. "

It never said that they would die on the same day:

"With regards to the Hebrew word yom for day in Genesis 2:17, It refers specifically to the action of eating and not “dying die. ” Solomon used an almost identical construction in 1 Kings when referring to Shimei:
“For on the day <yom> you go out and cross over the brook Kidron, You will know for certain that you shall surely <muwth> die <muwth>; your blood shall be on your own head. ” (1 Kings 2:37)

This verse uses yom (day) and the dual muwth just as Genesis 2:17 did. In Genesis 2:17, yom referred to the action (eating) in the same way that yom refers to the action here (go out and cross over). In neither case do they mean that was the particular day that death would come, But the particular day they did what they weren’t supposed to do.

Solomon also understood that it would not be a deathon that particular day but that Shemei’s days were numbered from that point. In other words, Their (Adam and Shimei) actions on that day were what gave them the final death sentence—they would surely die as a result of their actions. Therefore, The day, In Genesis 2:17 was referring to when Adam and the woman ate, Not the day they died. "


https://answersingenesis. Org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/why-didnt-adam-and-eve-die-the-instant-they-ate-the-fruit/

Over to you!

killshot

Con

Rebuttal

Even if death was not eminent on that day, Which I still disagree with, Death was not eminent at all because Adam and Eve ate the apple and did not die. The reason I disagree with your point is because this story is literally read the way I proposed it, And that is how the lay man would read/understand the story and form their Christian framework. This is important to note, Because almost no Christian reads the original texts (or copies of) - they read the translations. All of their Christian views and frameworks are formulated from their interpretation of the translations they read. This story reads the way I proposed it.

That being said, The talking snake was correct, The apple did nothing to them, God lied. It wasn't until a vengeful curse from God that caused their loss in immortality. Eating the fruit did not kill them, Therefore, Contradiction.

Next Contradiction - Free Will

It's common Christian belief, Inspired by doctrine, That God is omniscient and prophecies were foretold in the Bible. I'm excluding Bible verses here because I don't think I need them for this contradiction. If you intend to argue that God is not omniscient and prophecies were not in the Bible, I will provide verses.

How is it possible for free will and prophecies to coexist? I would argue it's not and this is a logical contradiction. For example, If the future is a product of many cumulative free will based decisions, How can God or anyone inspired by him possibly know the future? In order to know the future, The future would have to be pre-determined, Which would render free will impossible.

Debate Round No. 3
Speedrace

Pro

"Even if death was not eminent on that day, Which I still disagree with, Death was not eminent at all because Adam and Eve ate the apple and did not die. "

Well, For one, What you agree or disagree with is irrelevant. Second, They did die. I'm not sure where you got the idea that they're still living from.

"The reason I disagree with your point is because this story is literally read the way I proposed it, And that is how the lay man would read/understand the story and form their Christian framework. This is important to note, because almost no Christian reads the original texts (or copies of) - they read the translations. All of their Christian views and frameworks are formulated from their interpretation of the translations they read. This story reads the way I proposed it. "

The way it reads is irrelevant. What matters is the intent and purposeful meaning behind it, And them dying that day was not part of that intent. Remember, We are arguing whether the Bible has contradictions, Not Christianity and/or Christians.

"That being said, The talking snake was correct, The apple did nothing to them, God lied. It wasn't until a vengeful curse from God that caused their loss in immortality. Eating the fruit did not kill them, Therefore, contradiction. "

My personal understanding (and this is me digressing) is that they died spiritually, In that they became disconnected from God in a way that had not happened before.

Besides that, I already explained that they DID die, So no, That's not a contradiction.


"How is it possible for free will and prophecies to coexist? I would argue it's not and this is a logical contradiction. For example, If the future is a product of many cumulative free will based decisions, How can God or anyone inspired by him possibly know the future? In order to know the future, The future would have to be pre-determined, Which would render free will impossible. "

This makes no sense. Why would knowing the future mean you caused the future? To be pre-determined, The actions that everyone takes would have to be CHOSEN by God. He did not choose our actions, He simply knows them before they happen. You offer really no evidence that it is a logical contradiction.


Also, I would like to mention that you're not allowed to post any new contradictions claims in the fifth round since, Obviously, That would be unfair to me.


Over to you! :D
killshot

Con

The Apple

Here is the Genesis verse since you seem to have misread it haha:

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This clearly and unequivocally states that "in the day" you eat the apple (not years later; that same day), You "shalt surely die". The talking magic snake said this was bs, And he was correct. They ate the fruit and the fruit did not kill them. They did not die "in the day" of the fruits consumption; therefore, Contradiction. This is the literal reading of this verse.

I haven't forgot we are arguing the Bible's contradictions, I think you have. Is this not a verse directly from the Bible? I even used your preferred KJV.

Free Will

Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying, Or I didn't phrase it clear enough. I'll reword it:

If the future is a composition of compounding free will directed decisions, Then no one can logically know the future, Because the future is the result of free will choices that have not yet been made. It's impossible for someone to have knowledge of the future if the future can have an infinite amount of possibilities, And those possibilities are directed by numerous agents operating in a free will capacity. The only way someone can know the future is if it's pre-determined and free will does not exist.

I can even simplify this further by removing humans as free will agents; God itself cannot be omniscient and have free will simultaneously. Logically speaking, He cannot both know his choice and freely choose it. This in itself is a logical contradiction.
Debate Round No. 4
Speedrace

Pro

"Here is the Genesis verse since you seem to have misread it haha:

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.


This clearly and unequivocally states that "in the day" you eat the apple (not years later; that same day), You "shalt surely die". The talking magic snake said this was bs, And he was correct. They ate the fruit and the fruit did not kill them. They did not die "in the day" of the fruits consumption; therefore, Contradiction. This is the literal reading of this verse.

I haven't forgot we are arguing the Bible's contradictions, I think you have. Is this not a verse directly from the Bible? I even used your preferred KJV. "


I literally copied and pasted a paragraph explaining this. Here it is again:

"With regards to the Hebrew word yom for day in Genesis 2:17, It refers specifically to the action of eating and not “dying die. ” Solomon used an almost identical construction in 1 Kings when referring to Shimei:
“For on the day <yom> you go out and cross over the brook Kidron, You will know for certain that you shall surely <muwth> die <muwth>; your blood shall be on your own head. ” (1 Kings 2:37)

This verse uses yom (day) and the dual muwth just as Genesis 2:17 did. In Genesis 2:17, yom referred to the action (eating) in the same way that yom refers to the action here (go out and cross over). In neither case do they mean that was the particular day that death would come, But the particular day they did what they weren’t supposed to do.

Solomon also understood that it would not be a deathon that particular day but that Shemei’s days were numbered from that point. In other words, Their (Adam and Shimei) actions on that day were what gave them the final death sentence—they would surely die as a result of their actions. Therefore, The day, In Genesis 2:17 was referring to when Adam and the woman ate, Not the day they died. "

This is what the verse said, So no, There was no contradiction. How it's read by the lay man is irrelevant; it's the purpose and person behind it writing it that matters, And that person did not make a contradiction.


"Perhaps you didn't understand what I was saying, Or I didn't phrase it clear enough. I'll reword it:

If the future is a composition of compounding free will directed decisions, Then no one can logically know the future, Because the future is the result of free will choices that have not yet been made. It's impossible for someone to have knowledge of the future if the future can have an infinite amount of possibilities, And those possibilities are directed by numerous agents operating in a free will capacity. The only way someone can know the future is if it's pre-determined and free will does not exist.

I can even simplify this further by removing humans as free will agents; God itself cannot be omniscient and have free will simultaneously. Logically speaking, He cannot both know his choice and freely choose it. This in itself is a logical contradiction. "

That makes no sense. Knowing the future simply means that you know what will happen before it happens. Here's an example:

Some guy (Bob) can travel through time. Let's just say Bob goes into the future to see all of the questions that his teacher asks in class and what the answers are. Then, He travels back and answers every single one correctly.

Bob obviously did not decide what the future would be, However, He still KNEW it before it happened. This is what I'm talking about.

As to the other choice thing, God simply has made all of his choices already. That's obvious because he's omniscient; he knows everything and he has infinitely quickly made the decisions for all of those.


To conclude, I have refuted all of your points. Just to remind you, You can't bring in any new ones because that would obviously be unfair.
killshot

Con

This is what the verse said, So no, There was no contradiction. How it's read by the lay man is irrelevant; it's the purpose and person behind it writing it that matters, And that person did not make a contradiction.

What does the Bible say? The exact words are:

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

That is the translation. If the Bible is wrong, Like you want to claim, Then why even bother reading it? This debate is on whether or not the BIBLE has contradictions, Not the underlying language.


Some guy (Bob) can travel through time. Let's just say Bob goes into the future to see all of the questions that his teacher asks in class and what the answers are. Then, He travels back and answers every single one correctly.

Bob obviously did not decide what the future would be, However, He still KNEW it before it happened. This is what I'm talking about.

This scenario is entirely nonsensical. How can Bob see a future if the future has not yet been decided by the free will agents? It's impossible to have a "future" when free will is involved, Because the future is dependent on the decisions made using free will. Here is a better example:

Larry (free will agent) has a decision to make - A, B, C, D, E or F.
Kent (free will agent) has a decision to make - G, K, X, G or P.
Cindy (free will agent) has a decision to make - H, M, A, L, D or Y.
Kathy (free will agent) has a decision to make - J, D, R, C or M.

There are multiple combinations for futures here, Depending on what each of these 4 people choose (free will).

How can Bob "travel to the future", When there are multiple futures?
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
@killshot

Haha, I'm horrible at coming up with ideas -_-, Feel free to challenge me though if you think of one
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@speed anytime - pick a topic
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Of course! Let me know if you want to do it again sometime :D
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
Thanks @speed for another fun debate :)
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Hmmmmmmmmmm. . . Topic for another debate?
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@timmy - that's totally subjective interpretation and speculation. It doesn't say that at all. That being said, The fruit itself did not kill them, It was God who cursed them afterwards as punishment.
Posted by timmyjames 3 years ago
timmyjames
When it says the day you eat of it, You will surely die, It's talking about how a process of death begins. Death is a process that takes time. On the day they ate of the fruit, Their bodies no longer would lived forever.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@speed - That's a very good topic for discussion. It's actually an idea I've tossed around w/friends and colleagues several times. None of us work in neuroscience so it's mostly philosophical chitchat and conjecture, But it's still an interesting subject. Basically, We've concluded that our justice system is in place to protect people's welfare and uprooting it would have detrimental effects and possibly unknown or undesirable consequences. It's not fair to arrest people before they commit a crime, And it's not fair to not arrest people for committing a crime (even if it wasn't their fault) - it's a very gray area. I'm not even sure where I personally stand on it all. Most of our legal systems rely on the concept of free will.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
If that was true, Then why do we punish criminals? It's not their fault, They're just a pile of chemicals reacting in the way chemicals react.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@speed - I'm personally of the conclusion that free will is impossible and non-existent. I don't think anyone's decisions are made with the possibility of a different outcome. I think our neural networks, As complex as they are, Are a cumulative and compounding set of biological and environmental developments that process information through neural structures, And arrive at a conclusion based on complex internal algorithms. So in this instance, I didn't "choose" a belief, I simply calculated one. Different brains develop different biochemistry based on their genetic factors and developmental experiences; therefore, Different brains can arrive at different results, Simulating the illusion of freewill, Yet still decoupled and independent of free will choices.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.