The Instigator
Thiest_1998
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
killshot
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The KJV 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: 2/18/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,917 times Debate No: 120374
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (35)
Votes (0)

 

Thiest_1998

Pro

There are no contradictions in the Holy Bible (King James version) if anyone can disprove this claim feel free to accept this debate :)
killshot

Con

1 Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not the author of confusion, But of peace, As in all churches of the saints.

The Bible is the most confusing book on the planet. Even it's own subscribers can't agree on interpretations.

----------

Here is a list I found in a simple Google search. I feel like you're just trolling so I don't want to waste much time refuting it.


https://baptistdeception. Com/12-contradictions-found-in-the-kjv/#. XGrwxOhKiUk

1 Kings 4:26 says “And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots…” – 2 Chronicles 9:25 says “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots…”
Debate Round No. 1
Thiest_1998

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate I hope to have a very enjoyable debate with you

You said

"The Bible is the most confusing book on the planet. Even it's own subscribers can't agree on interpretations. "

My response

Personally from my life experiences and conversations I've had with people, They can get two different interpretations from;viewing an event unfold to listening to a speech to reading a piece of scripture because of their perspective and or their level of understanding that could be a reason on why are so many different interpretations on the Bible.

You said

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

My response

They had 10 horses per chariot if he had 40, 000 stalls for the horses and the chariots he would need 4, 000 stalls for the chariots and horses.

Thank you for taking the time to sending in your first response I look forward to your next.
killshot

Con

Sure, I look forward to a fun debate! Honestly, I thought you were a troll posting this so I didn't put much effort into it. I will make a better attempt in this round.

You said "Personally from my life experiences and conversations I've had with people, They can get two different interpretations from;viewing an event unfold to listening to a speech to reading a piece of scripture because of their perspective and or their level of understanding that could be a reason on why are so many different interpretations on the Bible. "

Ok, But that doesn't disprove the contradictive interpretations, Which is what I was making reference to. This could be argued that it is not a "contradiction in the KJV Bible", Which I will concede. Nevertheless, It was more intended as a commedial reply.

You said "They had 10 horses per chariot if he had 40, 000 stalls for the horses and the chariots he would need 4, 000 stalls for the chariots and horses. "

Can you provide the verse number you referenced for this stating there were 10 horses per chariot, Or is this just an assumption to make the math work out? Chariots generally were pulled by 4 horses, Sometimes 2. It could go up to 10, But that was rare and usually only in situations where the cargo was very heavy or other special circumstances. Regardless of your logic, The verses themselves are clearly in contradiction. One verse says one number, The other verse says a different one. That is a contradiction by definition.

Here are a few more contradictions. Technically, I only need 1 to win this debate, But here are 5 more. I could spend all day doing this, I didn't even make it out of the first book lol

1) Genesis 1:3 - God made light before there were stars
2) Genesis 1:16 - Refers to the moon being a star
3) Genesis 1:26 - Remnants of polytheism in the useage of "us" and "our" when God is alone (or God has multiple personalities)
4) Genesis 1:27 - God made man AND woman, But Genesis 2:22 God made Eve from Adams rib on a different day entirely
5) The order of when animals, Plants and man were created is totally different in Genesis 1 and 2

I look forward to your rebuttals. :)
Debate Round No. 2
Thiest_1998

Pro

You said

"Can you provide the verse number you referenced for this stating there were 10 horses per chariot, Or is this just an assumption to make the math work out? Chariots generally were pulled by 4 horses, Sometimes 2. It could go up to 10, But that was rare and usually only in situations where the cargo was very heavy or other special circumstances. Regardless of your logic, The verses themselves are clearly in contradiction. One verse says one number, The other verse says a different one. That is a contradiction by definition. "

My response

To be honest I would think that it was common sense to realise that, No offence meant at all by the way.

You said

1) Genesis 1:3 - God made light before there were stars
2) Genesis 1:16 - Refers to the moon being a star
3) Genesis 1:26 - Remnants of polytheism in the useage of "us" and "our" when God is alone (or God has multiple personalities)
4) Genesis 1:27 - God made man AND woman, But Genesis 2:22 God made Eve from Adams rib on a different day entirely
5) The order of when animals, Plants and man were created is totally different in Genesis 1 and 2

My response

1. Hypothetically speaking if I worked for Oxford and I asked you to describe (light) so we could put in the dictionary how would you describe it and from there I can forward this rebuttal because I am yet to meet someone who can describe light.

2. What's your point?

3. John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, And the Word was with God, And the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4. Maybe 1:27 is a summary and 2:22 is a recapitulation

5. Could you please be more specific about that eg exact verse

Thank you for being a good sport I'm enjoying this debate.
killshot

Con

1) Light in a colloquial sense, Is a collection of photons emitted from nuclear fusion taking place in a sun. Unless God was using a flashlight or something else, I'm pretty sure that's what it was referring to lol

2) My point is the moon is not a star and this is a contradiction to reality.

3) What does that verse have to do with polytheist words in Genesis? I'm really struggling to see the connection you made there.

4) Well they don't match, So. . . . Either the recap is wrong or the original is wrong, Or both. Either way, Contradiction.

5) There isn't a specific verse here, It's multiple verses throughout Genesis 1 and 2. Just read the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 creation verses. The order of events don't match.

I look forward to your replies.
Debate Round No. 3
Thiest_1998

Pro

You said

1) Light in a colloquial sense, Is a collection of photons emitted from nuclear fusion taking place in a sun. Unless God was using a flashlight or something else, I'm pretty sure that's what it was referring to lol

My response

Your definition doesn't fully encompass light because you don't need nuclear fusion to create light in some instances all you need is oxygen heat and fuel also personally I don't think he would need a but I should have stated this a while ago, Referring to your statement in round 2 where you said that God made light before the stars, I feel like you're putting the limitations of humans on God, God doesn't have any limitations that's partly what makes him God.

2. By our definition i mean with even some English words the definition changes over time.
https://theculturetrip. Com/europe/articles/10-english-words-that-have-completely-changed-meaning/

3. Honestly I'm trying not to be insulting but if I try and explain it further I don't think you'd understand

4. How? 1:27 is a summary and 2:22 is a recapitulation how is this a contradiction I'm actually struggling to understand.

5. Are you referring to something new or just point 4.

I missed debates :)
killshot

Con

1) You're refute to my definition of light is exactly why I specified "in a colloquial sense". Colloquially speaking, When people say it's light out, Or refer to day/night light, They are referring to sunlight. When people read this passage of Genesis, That is the general interpretation, And that is what is taught in all the churches I've ever been to. Saying God has no limitations is just a cop out for an actual answer. I have presented you with a contradiction and you're only defense is "well God can do anything, So he could have done it somehow". You can't prove God can do anything, It's merely conjecture. In fact, You can't even prove whether God exists or not. Therefore, All we are left with is the generally accepted interpretation of this story, Which is - light comes from a star.

2) Then show me the Hebrew/English issue for that verse. Don't send me a link that says "There are some words that now have different meanings than they did before, Therefore, Maybe this is one of them".

3) Please, Explain away. Floor is yours.

4) Ok, I will make this very simple. Here is a story (A = B). Here is a recap (A = C). B does not equal C, Therefore those statements do not match. The story does not match the recap. You have 2 contradicting things. A recap is a summary of events. It's not a different account of events entirely.

5) I am saying the order in which the events occurred (making homo sapiens, Making animals, Making water, Etc), Is different between Genesis 1 and 2. The accounts don't match.

This debate is structured around whether the KJV has contradictions. All I need is one to prove this wrong. I have already stated several.
Debate Round No. 4
Thiest_1998

Pro

1. I know it's a bit picky but I think it's naive to say every church teaches this I personally haven't been to a single church that even talks about that line and yes light can come from a star as well as other things and to counter what you said you can't either prove that God can't do anything.

2. I'm talking about the meaning of English words changing over time eg star if you don't want to click on links then that's ok

3. To be honest I might have given you the best explanation and if I try and give you another explanation then I feel as if it would 1. Be completely misunderstood or b. You wouldn't understand it

4. It's a recap and secondly about the animals and plants being mentioned in chapter 2 it is talking about what happened in the garden.

I have refuted it but you just don't understand my rebuttals.
killshot

Con

1) This debate is not about me proving whether God can or can't do anything, It's about me showing a single contradiction. This is one, But I listed others as well. I never even made it out of the first book.
2) Yes, Words change over time, So what? You would need to show that this word changed from it's original meaning. For that you would need the original language and it's interpretations.
3) Ok
4) It's not a recap, It's a totally separate account of events. It doesn't matter whether it was in the Garden of Eden or not, The order of events do not match. It's location is irrelevent.


Debate Round No. 5
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@melc

You said "i can clarify number 4 for ya. Eve was in Adam when God created him. They were 1 piece, 1 temple if you will. God preordained that adam would have a wife, But he allowed the process of time to show adam needed one to be whole. "

There is nothing in Genesis 1 or 2 stating that, So it's pure interpretation and speculation on your part. There are two separate accounts in Gen 1 & 2 and they contradict each other on how and when women came about. The authors are also unknown, Since Moses is not even proven to be a historical character.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@speed - you don't have to believe anything lol. The nice part about science is you can cross check it. Yes you should believe that the universe is about 14B years old, Because it is. Whether you believe Jesus existed historically or not, It doesn't matter because it doesn't prove his divinity either way. Several men named Jesus existed, It was a common name. Even if "the" Jesus existed, It doesn't mean he was divine. I used to believe he existed historically as well, But then I looked at the evidence for it - Tacitus and Josephus and I quickly changed my mind. Interesting debate topic if you want to have it?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@melcharaz

Are you trying to give non-theists ideas?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Speedrace

"The general historical consensus is that Jesus existed and that is taught in history class. So we have to believe that, Right? "
From pseudo scientists or scientist?
Also if you can name a scientist who states this as well.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
@killshot

You said in our debate that a 14 billion year-old earth is the general scientific consensus and is taught in science class. So we have to believe that, Right?

The general historical consensus is that Jesus existed and that is taught in history class. So we have to believe that, Right?
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
if you really want to show contridictions in the bible, The best chance is to go to the greek manuscripts. Now, The scribes made roughly about 50k errors when transcribing the Bible, But that was mostly commas and it has to do with Old Testament.

the new testament however. . . You would have to go back over history to see the romans were trying to arrest and destroy the new testament and that many of the writtings were. . . . Not exactly good as they weren't scribes.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
i can clarify number 4 for ya. Eve was in Adam when God created him. They were 1 piece, 1 temple if you will. God preordained that adam would have a wife, But he allowed the process of time to show adam needed one to be whole.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@just

You said " If the church embraced his ideas they would have embraced an idea that modern science has disproved. "

I hate to break it to you, But our planet orbits the sun. The Church was wrong, As usual, And their obstructions to science served no benefit to our species. Even now, They twist and manipulate science to mold it to their presuppositions (like evolution/creationism). Saying evolution is how God did creationism is not possible since the account in Genesis and evolution are 100% contradicting.

Creationism and evolution are not compatible because life didn't form in 7 days from archetypes, Man was not made from dust, Women were not made from ribs, And there never was a single man and woman homo sapien. Even the Church now recognizes that, Which is why the Genesis account is labeled as metaphorical, Even though it was taught literally prior. This entirely negates the whole concept of original sin, Which basically negates the entire doctrine. Souls are part of Christian mythology and have no base in science.

Jesus's existence and resurrection has no historical basis either. Josephus is a known interpolation and Tacitus is a forgery, Or at best, Hearsay, Since it was written 100+ years after Jesus and refers to historical events that are not verifiable. There are no credible extrabiblical references to Jesus. Wanna try again?
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@Just-Call-Me-PK

"Explain the extremely rapid growth of Christianity after Christ's resurrection? "
A lot of people were deluded and if a lie has been told enough times eventually it becomes truth. Still did not tell me how this is a fact. Wonder why guess you can't even defend your own Religion.

"Why is there something and not nothing? "
Says the person who believes in something they cannot even comprehend. Did I say I something can come from nothing? If God is part of the natural world then I am sure you would agree God would come from nothing yet you are annoyed that your straw man uses it? Double standard?

"I'm afraid it is not correct because I CAN comprehend God I never said I couldn't. "
You can understand the being yet you have no evidence of such a thing existing. Really feels like you are saying it as if you have a point.

"A perfect example of misunderstanding the bible and taking it out of context. "
Did I take Bible verses out of context? No. Are you going through your talking points to see if any of them stick? Yes. I would have had to use a Bible versed for your talking point to even matter. Guess something does come from nothing.

"Pay attention to what it actually says. "
Pay attention to what you actually said. It really does look like you do not even know what you are talking about.

Like your profile picture. My subjective interpretation is that it is a DMT using Jesus but I may be wrong because as you know it is subject to interpretation.

"If you respond to Gods grace you will see that faith isn't blind. "
A claim made as if I know what you are talking about. You think if every single person hears this Bible verses you think they will actually care about Christianity. I can only speak for myself so to me that barely has meaning. What meaning I can derive from it is that it is another talking point of a theist. Bring in Bible verses as if it helps your case.
Posted by Just-Call-Me-PK 3 years ago
Just-Call-Me-PK
Galileo was a scientist not a theologian, And his persistence on trying to be was his downfall, If he stuck to theory like his friends did and suggested he did then he would have saved himself a lot of trouble. He also couldn't refute Aristotle and made fun of his apparent friend pope Urban. He was also treated very well.
The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, Such as the one that judged Galileo, To be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible. The pope never tried to make an infallible teaching on Galileo's views. If the church embraced his ideas they would have embraced an idea that modern science has disproved. "Evolution and creationism are not compatible" 1. I never said I believed in creationism, 2. Why is it not compatible? 3. A soul can't evolve. The church has NEVER condemned evolution this is just a lie and readers can simply Google this. I suggest you Google Jean Baptiste Lamarck and Georges Lemaitre. You are just showing your ignorance of scripture and history, Jesus existence and resurrection has more historical evidence than both of them put together so to say there is no evidence is again a lie. Also, God doesn't send anyone to hell, "God wills all to be saved"

@omar, Explain the extremely rapid growth of Christianity after Christ's resurrection? Why is there something and not nothing? Also check the last part of your question, I'm afraid it is not correct because I CAN comprehend God I never said I couldn't. A perfect example of misunderstanding the bible and taking it out of context. Pay attention to what it actually says.

If you respond to Gods grace you will see that faith isn't blind.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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