Does the Bible contain Contradictions?
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
*This debate is unrated because this is my first serious religious debate, this is for practice.*
*Omar2345 is not allowed to accept because I would be wasting my time debating him, as he says..*
*Imabench and Rationalmadman are not allowed to vote*
*contradiction-a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.*
*Only teachings of the Bible are allowed, no anti-christ shit in the Bible that contradict*
*The BOP is on Pro, I wave first round, Pro waives last*
In this debate con starts out rejecting the burden of proof, arguing the burden is all on his opponent. Pro argues that con is making a claim and argues must support it; I tend to side with con here - as the terms of the debate are clear and it does give a sufficient path to victory for pro (and the rules aren’t challenged as unfair). However, there is an issue with exactly how Con can prove a contradiction.
Con doesn’t specify what a contradiction is, how substantial it needs to me, and how l as a voter should be able to determine whether pro has met the criteria.
Pro is the only side that gave me a consistent method in 1.02; explained why this method is necessary, and why other methods are unfair. This methodology was unchallenged by pro, and seem fairly reasonable to me. While pro conceded the necessity of inerrancy - he does not concede this method.
So on to the contradictions.
Con drops the contradiction for 1.03 (where did Mary give birth)
In terms of 1.04 there, talking about the resurrection. In one Mary was told by an angel, in another Mary went and found the tomb empty. The contradictions pro points out is substantial - that Mary was told to get the disciples by an angel, and then in another tells the disciples after finding the tomb empty. Con simply objects that they were at different times of day - but it appears difficult to reconcile these two events on that basis. Both sides reiterate there side.
To me - cons argument does not make sense; Mary Magdalene would have been at the tomb twice - and would have run to get the apostles twice. Con appears to then argue that they happened together after arguing they happened at different times.
Judas contradictions. Pro presents a case where Judas died in two different ways according to those explicitly outlined in the Bible; and the name of the field itself.
Con argues both ways constitute the same way - through an AiG article.
The issue I have - is that the bible appears to be contradictory. Con has to interject his opinion or add information, and jump through mental hoops to reconcile the two. Pro did well using an example of two completely different types of death in reporting - and asking con to demonstrate the phrasing used.
In this respect the bible itself appears contradictory - by any reasonable measure. In my opinion, con must show that there is not just a potentially possible explanation, but that this explanation is plausible. While parts of his explanation indicate the former - none indicate the explanation is a reasonable common sense explanation.
2.05. Imo pro does not do enough here to outline a specific example for me. There are hints of specific cases that could be contradictions if pro went into more detail, but there is not enough for me to assess.
This all boils down to what a contradiction is. Pro outlines his definition of how to detect it, con outlines the definition in the description of the debate: and as far as I can see by any reasonable interpretation the dropped point, the resurrection issue and the issue of Judas both appear to be cases where the bible says two different things that would be reasonably interpreted as being mutually exclusive. Cons response was speculative - with an almost dismissive argument that did not address or argue the plausibility of his explanation and appeared to mostly ignore the key details of what pro was highlighting.
As such, pro has established that the bible does contain contradictions: thus arguments to pro.
Conduct: Cons argument was frequently dismissive and at times petulant - culminating in a final round where con barely engages. Two main arguments from cons relied on quoting sources in lieu of an argument in his own words - pro is debating you: not your sources, and Its not very respectful to simply quote a source without context and additional information.
Statements such as “No it's not unfair, As the Instigator, I can do what I want, and you have to accept it, stop kritiking.”
“Do I have to repeat what I just said.The events happen at the same time, why are you repeating yourself,next point”
Are disrespectful to his opponent - and the attitude seemed needless.
Saying that, these issues didn’t fully cross the line of overt unacceptability - so I won’t award the Conduct point, though con should bear this in mind for other debates.
Thanks for voting!
I appreciate you taking the time to explain why you voted the way you did, I am definitely going to take some pointers from it.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources.
>Reason for Decision: I wouldn't quote ehrman as he says himself that his writings aren't scholarly.
There are 400000 variants.
arguing the textual variance is not proof worthy of contridiction as according to some translations its is majority text or oldest text. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae
what is the NAME of the father, son and holy spirit? Jesus (YHWH our salvation) christ (anointed one)
the account of judas is the same. one is more lengthy in description of what he did. falling head first is what one does when they pitch forward from a tree. he gave the money to the priests and hanged himself, it became known as the field of blood from 2 points of view. 1, he hanged himself on the tree there and died. 2. his money was used against innocent blood. but notice that the chief priests said it was blood money AFTER he hanged himself. not before.
joseph geneology. (not entirely joseph's) heli most likely gave the linage of mary, not joseph.
Reason for Mod Action> Both arguments and sources are insufficiently explained:
To award arguments, the voter must (1) survey the main arguments and counterarguments in the debate, (2) weigh those arguments and counterarguments against each other, and (3) explain, based on the weighing process, how they reached their decision.
To award sources points, the voter must (1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate, (2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and (3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall was superior to the other's.
*******************************************************************
I wouldn't quote ehrman as he says himself that his writings aren't scholarly.
There are 400000 variants.
arguing the textual variance is not proof worthy of contridiction as according to some translations its is majority text or oldest text. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae
what is the NAME of the father, son and holy spirit? Jesus (YHWH our salvation) christ (anointed one)
the account of judas is the same. one is more lengthy in description of what he did. falling head first is what one does when they pitch forward from a tree. he gave the money to the priests and hanged himself, it became known as the field of blood from 2 points of view. 1, he hanged himself on the tree there and died. 2. his money was used against innocent blood. but notice that the chief priests said it was blood money AFTER he hanged himself. not before.
joseph geneology. (not entirely joseph's) heli most likely gave the linage of mary, not joseph.
Since you made it clear you are not going to engage. I'll leave with this:
I really must have a triggered you so much for you to call me "delusional". I can guess where it came from but I can conclude that I have at least annoyed one more person on this site. I Really do make a habit of it.
Lets agree to never speak to each other again. I failed to see anything thoughtful occuring. I am going to say the same to RM, Dr.Franklin and others since like I have made it clear earlier I have annoyed more people and personally I am not really gaining even when annoying people apart from my own annoyance so nothing positive.
See you never.
If you read what I wrote you will see that I was stating that his conduct was cowardly, not necessarily him. You don't intend to mischaracterize critcisms of conduct as personal attacks, do you? That would a bit like a straw man. BTW it's cowardly because he's not putting anything on the line in terms of ELO even though this is a serious debate. That, and all the other rules and limitations he put in to the debate, taken as a whole, was a cowardly thing to do. AFAIK the purpose of implementing unrated debates largely had to do with rap battles and other silly debates where the quality of users' performance didn't have much to do with how good they were at debating, could be wrong about that though. I don't really keep up with the MEEPs and such.
Thank you for conceding that "you're too delusional to be worth interacting with."
>> "My basis for being a coward in terms of debating requires the person to actually create a debate."
That you define bravery as cowardice is strong evidence your parents and teachers have failed you. For that you have my sympathy.
>>"Your failure to show your side"
As any not functionally-illiterate person can see, it starts with me correcting Death in #17 (whom drops out, which by any sane person's standards means just that he did not continue the discussion...). Within that post I explained my position that it is wrong to insult someone by calling them cowardly for an act of bravery. This is literally showing my side, which you comedically consider to be the mark of "failure to show [my] side."
>> "please point out this magical place where I conceded?"
Your failure to show your side is result of not making a good argument or intentionally doing so in order to stifle conversation. It is an implied concession. Instead of actually explaining your side you instead don't even bother.
Again, "please point out this magical place where I conceded?"
Since you are now repeatedly insisting it is there, either you can find a quote, or you're too delusional to be worth interacting with.
>>Not continuing a discussion and conceding are worlds apart.
Your contention was brought into question by me. With no rebuttal you simply don't engage. What I am supposed to imply? You have a really good argument but you don't want to show it? I'll take the more reasonable stance. You don't have an argument which is why you didn't give one.
>>You and Death seem to believe those apparently cowardly users who dare to begin engaging in debates should be insulted for it.
We were talking about what makes a person a coward or brave. You instead further increased what we were talking about to insults. I don't want to discuss that because it removes from what we were talking about. Is Dr.Franklin a coward for having an unrated debate, having restrictions to voting and debating?
>>You have a comprehension problem with analogies, which made me drop out of the discussion.
I added more nuance which you missed out. A boxer can still be more brave by trying to go for the finish whereas a boxer who doesn't go for the finish goes for a decision is seen more cowardly.
>>Nothing is stopping you or Death from opening your own debates on this topic you're criticizing.
Do you think Dr.Franklin would accept the debate I create bearing in mind he doesn't want to debate me here?
>>but by your own standards you're more cowardly than the instigator of this debate
My basis for being a coward in terms of debating requires the person to actually create a debate. You don't ask questions instead assumed my intentions. Why not simply ask what would be cowardly in terms of debate and what would be brave in terms of debating but instead you decided to assume my intentions and made an argument out of it.
Looks like we have another thing conservatives and liberals can agree on: Omar knows nothing
Please point out this magical place where I conceded? Not continuing a discussion and conceding are worlds apart.
You and Death seem to believe those apparently cowardly users who dare to begin engaging in debates should be insulted for it. I disagree. You have a comprehension problem with analogies, which made me drop out of the discussion.
Nothing is stopping you or Death from opening your own debates on this topic you're criticizing. I don't think you are cowards for not, but by your own standards you're more cowardly than the instigator of this debate; and if you're being logical consistent should insult each other for said failing.
You initial contention was this:
>> How is unrated cowardly? It shows lower confidence, but at least he's debating.
In a more recent comment you said this:
>> Your end statement gets to the heart of the problem of insulting members for engaging in debates.
Your final comment was this:
>> Your problem understanding subtext is not something I care to help you with.
Instead of defending your comments against Death23 points you instead talk about how insulting it is then you pretty much concede at the end.
Your problem understanding subtext is not something I care to help you with.
So instead of actually having an argument for Dr.Franklin being brave you instead resort to something that was not the point of the conversation?
Your end statement gets to the heart of the problem of insulting members for engaging in debates.
Are you writing this on a phone?
>>Nice rhetoric.
My aim was not to be persuasive more so try to voice the problems with what you said in 4 words.
>>There's many users (whom I shall not name), who hide in the forums and comment sections, refusing to ever engage in actual debates. Were this a physical sport such as boxing, he would be stepping into the ring and risking getting his head beat in; that he is not confident enough in his abilities to wager money on the fight, in no way implies he's a coward, in fact him stepping into the ring at all proves a commendable degree of bravery.
You have applied a different context with a different standard. Being in a boxing ring is brave. I am saying in this context being in a debate is brave. There is more nuance than just that. It is more brave for a person to test himself against the best which are commonly found outside of amateur then to fight unranked with people who have not turned professional. It is more brave to debate rated while also facing debaters like you, Ramshutu or blamonkey who pretty much exclusively take part in ranked debates and would be DA's version of boxing professionals.
See the difference? Simply making it simple makes you what you said lack nuance.
>>"at least he's debating."
To be more brave he would have to make it rated while also allow people who he doesn't want debating or voting on this to be included.
Nice rhetoric. The problem is that it's a distinction with a demonstrated difference, as seen: "at least he's debating."
There's many users (whom I shall not name), who hide in the forums and comment sections, refusing to ever engage in actual debates. Were this a physical sport such as boxing, he would be stepping into the ring and risking getting his head beat in; that he is not confident enough in his abilities to wager money on the fight, in no way implies he's a coward, in fact him stepping into the ring at all proves a commendable degree of bravery.
>>How is unrated cowardly? It shows lower confidence
This is a distinction without a difference.
You pointed out a distinction but didn't realized a person who is cowardly heavily implies or inherently has low confidence.
yeah, no one is going to vote on my earth age debate
How is unrated cowardly? It shows lower confidence, but at least he's debating. I admit to preferring rated (just a feeling I can't put into words), but if the primary goal is the debate, there's no reason to insult the absence of point rewards.
You were trying to write a science thesis in that debate, it called for a lot of characters, and is quite unlikely to be fully read by anyone.
Do you know the terms Argumentum Ad Nauseam and Gish Gallop? If either of you approach 10k on a simple premise like this, one or both of those is probably being committed.
it's not slavery in a sense of harsh slavery
I did debunk you ideas on slavery
How is this a Fornite roast and why can't you defend your positions?
I am actually waiting for you to "debunk" my ideas on Christianity not condemning slavery. I guess you can't do it.
default!, lol big fortnite roasts
Can't defend your positions you default to no or some random insult that doesn't support your side.
Your welcome, I recommended DART for reasons, it's a better website and I got banned for only 6 days
Hi there...
Didn't you wrote 'I got banned from DART for reasons'? Were you allow back here? It's nice to know you are a multi-website user. I suppose you like this website more because you 'recommend' this website to me in 'I like Debate.org'? Thanks for that I am now here giving a comment.
I'm sorry your wasting my time
Can't accept losing. Have people you can't argue against as per the rules while also making it unrated so that your win/loss isn't impacted.
Dr.F explained he is expanding his horizons, I think an unrated debate is a good vehicle for that. His topic certainly carries a higher than recommended degree of difficulty, to which Ragnar's joke alluded
No,it's not, the last time I did a debate with with 10k, I ran out of room every time
Those are fine
Again the contradictions,if they are teachings of the Bible and presented as fact,then it is fine.
Cowardly to have the debate unrated and then put up all these rules about who is allowed to vote and such, and particularly limiting the contradictions only to "teachings of the Bible", conveniently avoiding all the clear numerical contradictions (e.g. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions#Numeric_contradictions ). These rules aren't binding on voters or debaters.
30,000 characters... that is about 26k too many.