Instigator / Con
1
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#4368
You can provide a bonafide biblical contradiction.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
1
1
After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
1
1522
rating
14
debates
28.57%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Biblical contradictions you find not. Any you think you can find or think you have found, I will attempt to debunk them as contradictions that are perceived to be.
Questions on the topic, leave them in the comments.
Round 1
Pro
#2
According to the Bible, God at one point said "no one may see me and live" (Exodus 33:20). In addition, the Bible says, "No man hath seen God at any time" (John 1:18). The Bible is very clear that nobody can god and live and nobody has seen God. This is shown even more by something else the Bible says, "no one has ever seen or can see" (1 Timothy 6:16).
However, there are many who both have seen God and lived.
"Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel . . . they beheld God" (Exodus 24:9-11). This is further shown when Jacob said "I have seen God face to face" (Genesis 32:30). This is even further proven by the quote, "The Lord would speak to Moses face to face" (Exodus 33:11).
These errors are not just native to the English translation of the Bible. The original, unfiltered Bible, written in Hebrew (which was what the Bible was originally written in), also has these.
Round 2
Con
#3
I don't want to call anybody out but I just had to put this out first .
"If you read it in context, it makes sense."
When something is completed by a context, why wouldn't it make sense?
The context just provides more cohesive details, would it not?
Silly thoughts out here from the folks but I give a shout out to my critics. They still have yet to refute the minority of views on a majority dominated platform.
I digress on that.
Atheists that have a close mind because they initially reject the possibility of God will also have a rejection and reluctance to only go but so far in reading the bible. So quite realistically, they only read but so many words and verses, dismissing the rest that are crucial to the context. Then publish a list of phony contradictions based on their personal understanding, presupposing review , partial approach to the book .
You got to take note of that first. It's not an honest assessment. Either that or lacking the essential study.
Moving on to "seeing God face to face " business.
Here's what I have to say.
Now the John 1:18, one of the things if not the first thing that came to mind was another scripture in John 6.
John 6 and at verse 46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."
So no man has seen God . That is until the exception by the mercy of God.
Jacob in Genesis 32 saw God face to face and was preserved.
In Exodus 32:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."
But back up to verse 11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face".
Now out of context, it appears to be contrary. But we see the exception in John 6 and God can say no man can see His face except where He shows mercy and those that found grace in His sight.
Exodus 32:17 "And the Lord said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name."
Down at verse 18 " And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy."
I'll stop there .
Pro
#4
Now out of context, it appears to be contrary. But we see the exception in John 6 and God can say no man can see His face except where He shows mercy and those that found grace in His sight.Exodus 32:17 "And the Lord said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name."Down at verse 18 " And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy."
This is just a further contradiction, though. If the Bible says God cannot appear to anyone (like I previously cited) then goes on to say that no man can see God unless under circumstances; those contradict each other.
Round 3
Con
#5
"This is just a further contradiction, though. If the Bible says God cannot appear to anyone (like I previously cited) then goes on to say that no man can see God unless under circumstances; those contradict each other. "
Let us look at an example. You hear somebody say I'm dead. You jump in , perhaps cut them off at the "dead" part. It could be in person or on a recording where the recording was cut off or just part 1 or part-a or side-a was heard. There's a greater context but you're only getting or hearing part of it. You don't get the other part that said " tired" or "serious".
The person was saying I'm dead tired or dead serious. That's the full or complete context .
You hear a person say they killed someone.
You didn't choose to listen any further where they explained what they meant.
They killed someone with kindness.
There is a greater context in the scriptures. The scripture says line upon line. The scriptures have to be read line upon line. Don't just come to a halt at one passage. When you don't know scripture, you won't be ready for someone coming with another passage to throw out what you thought you had.
Pro
#6
Let us look at an example. You hear somebody say I'm dead. You jump in , perhaps cut them off at the "dead" part. It could be in person or on a recording where the recording was cut off or just part 1 or part-a or side-a was heard. There's a greater context but you're only getting or hearing part of it. You don't get the other part that said " tired" or "serious".The person was saying I'm dead tired or dead serious. That's the full or complete context .You hear a person say they killed someone.You didn't choose to listen any further where they explained what they meant.They killed someone with kindness.There is a greater context in the scriptures. The scripture says line upon line. The scriptures have to be read line upon line. Don't just come to a halt at one passage. When you don't know scripture, you won't be ready for someone coming with another passage to throw out what you thought you had.
Then show me where. You cannot just say that there is a greater context in the scriptures I am missing, ergo it isn't a contradiction, and then proceed to not give that greater context. I have already looked at the full context of each in the scripture, so I know that there is no greater context. For the you prove the point that there is, you would have to point out that context. This is simply insisting I am not seeing contradictions without disproving any of the evidence I've said or asserting any evidence of your own; it is a baseless claim that hasn't been backed up. Extend previous arguments / contradictions.
Round 4
Con
#7
"Then show me where. You cannot just say that there is a greater context in the scriptures I am missing,".
Well what are you not getting about my explanations of the texts?
This is what I mean. I bring the explanations, you're not coming back with questions over them.
"Show you where ". I've done so with the explanations.
I explained, harmonized the passages"seeing God face to face". What are you not getting?
You have one scripture here in Exodus. Then you'll have an exception to it in John 6. Just like there's an exception in Matthew 19 about what constitutes adultery. I believe in Luke it says whoever that marries another that was divorced commits adultery. Then we come across a situation that isn't adultery but still is a marriage/divorce/remarriage circumstance, we know because of Matthew 19.
Likewise with Jacob seeing God face to face, he was of God. The problem is your stuck in one passage not seeing the whole bible as the context.
Now all this is more explanation so next round be sure to have plenty of specific questions regarding what I just said here. A student learns a lot from asking questions .
Really can't get no more plainer than that. But instead of sitting back folding your arms saying you don't see what I'm talking about calling contradiction, ask inquisitive questions.
Round 5
Con
#9
No questions, no rebuttals.
Go back read the book, study , learn.
Many of you that look up a website to see what others think, continue on to learn for yourself what the books are saying and teaching.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
By the choice of Pro to miss 2/5 of debate.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
This one stuck with just those who have seen God’s face and lived.
Con defends by citing one passage from much later that adds an explanation. Pro accuses this of being another change away from what the earlier books stated.
Con insists pro is cherry picking, not giving enough surrounding text so that it misleads the audience. Pro states he has read it and requests con show what part of the context from those passages is missing; which con then refuses to do.
Cons explanation of what constitutes missing context (things like /I’m dead lol/ cutting out the lol) supports this outcome, as he shows context is given close to the text; not several books later in a series.
I keep seeing this topic.
I consider him a floppy disk without memory storage once it is pulled out. What he learns in the debate stays in the debate and the same lessons cannot be cross-applied in different debates on the exact same topic.
But he isn't not trying. He is just simplistic, in my opinion.
I would differ in your opinion as the disclaimer talks about learning. Not once have I seen any form of agreeableness or capitulation which I think k is very important in life and as an effective debater.
We used to consider him an Elo printer until we don't because we would have to wait 5 rounds of frustrating and gruesome repetition that just makes debating unfun all of a sudden. Looks like he is ok with it and he is fine with himself not "winning" any of them. Truly a man true to his disclaimers.
The instigator has 5 of these debates in play right now. Everything you say will be retorted with "if you read it in context, it makes sense". Mall is just trying to publically intellectually masturbate a bit.
Please define "Bible" ( i.e. Old and New testaments together, or one without the other" . Please define what constitutes a " bonafide biblical contradiction".