The Bible is internally consistent.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
I (pro) will be arguing that the bible is internally consistent in all significant ways. with significant being defined as a "contradiction" that can't be reasonably attributed to a translation error.
My opponent (Con) will attempt to prove that the Bible contradicts itself in a significant way.
2. No new arguments from either side in the final round
3. The translation we'll be using is the "New Revised Standard Version" without the Apocrypha.
R1: pro waives the first round Con provides a constructive
R2: pro's rebuttal, Con's rebuttal
R3: Pro and Con rebuttals
R4: Final Focus and Summary.
8 Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others of those from Cilicia and Asia, stood up and argued with Stephen. 10 But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit[c] with which he spoke. 11 Then they secretly instigated some men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” 12 They stirred up the people as well as the elders and the scribes; then they suddenly confronted him, seized him, and brought him before the council. 13 They set up false witnesses who said, “This man never stops saying things against this holy place and the law; 14 for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth[d] will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses handed on to us.” 15 And all who sat in the council looked intently at him, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel.
54 When they heard these things, they became enraged and ground their teeth at Stephen.[j] 55 But filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” 57 But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. 58 Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he died.[k]
The Death of Jesus
15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”
“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.
“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.
16 Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.
By my figuring, those would both be external inconsistencies. Which falls outside of the resolution.
"significant being defined as a "contradiction" that can't be reasonably attributed to a translation error."
You may want to change that wording. By that definition, I could win by establishing a contradiction that wasn't explained by translation, but instead by logic or historical information.
I'm going with Pro on this one. Though Con's first arguments were well thought and rebutted in the second round, Pro did a good job of defending his position. Also, Con neglected to make a 3rd Round argument (waived) of which Pro just extended their arguments in the final round.
I wanted to add that it is my understanding that Matthew's genealogy of Jesus was His Paternal side and Luke's was his maternal side. Perhaps Con's point about the Jewish status being proven by the mother actually supports Pro's position then? Just food for thought.