Instigator / Con
4
1616
rating
32
debates
62.5%
won
Topic
#1139

Does the Bible contain Contradictions?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

croweupc
Parameters
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
Contender / Pro
7
1525
rating
4
debates
75.0%
won
Description

*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*

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.