Instigator / Con
0
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#4369
You can find 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
0
3
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
prefix
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
3
1511
rating
7
debates
78.57%
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
Con
#1
What scriptures do you have to perceive as contradictions?
Just as a side note because I see this error quite a bit but show the perceived contradictions by language. When you see the words appearing as written contradicting one another, we're proceeding from a solid foundation.
Just reading and getting an interpretation from thoughts and those thoughts tripping you up is not a bonafide contradiction. Your own understanding is the culprit in mixing things up .
Pro
#2
Inasmuch as CON has failed to define the terms used in this debate, PRO will proceed to do so.
The topic is "You can find a bonafide biblical contradiction." The terms to define are "bonafide", "biblical" and "contradiction".
Firstly the term "contradiction" shall be taken to mean a plurality of textual statements which give rise to "a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another" (1) .
Taking the term "biblical" it shall mean the universe of the total text of the Bible as a single work contained in the text from Genesis to Revelation.
Now comes the term "bonafide" . Turning to Merriam-webster one finds "neither specious nor counterfeit : GENUINE.....made with earnest intent : SINCERE...made in good faith without fraud or deceit" (2).
In other words if the Bible states to take and another's eye for the lose of your eye and then also states to not take the other's eye but instead to offer your second eye, that is a textual contradiction, which would constitute a "biblical contradiction ".
PRO wants to state that the finding of a contradiction does not cast doubt on the authority of the Bible, as differing propositions may be offered under different conditions. However this debate is about textual contradictions. It is not about "religious contradiction".
Round 2
Con
#3
Please don't filibuster and stall. I could be debunking these so called contradictions by now.
Do you actually have ones you think exist in the bible?
Pro
#4
PRO had asked -con- to define the terms of this debate. Because -con- did not bring forth definitions PRO has done so in round #1. Thus since -con- has not offered counter definitions, con has tacitly accepted, and the terms will be as presented.
Now comes the examples .
#1 “The Sabbath Day
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8
“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” — Romans 14:5 (1)
Thus proposition A is “you MUST keep the Sabbath” while proposition B is “you DO NOT HAVE to keep the Sabbath”
Clearly A = B is FALSE
***********
#2 “ The Permanence of Earth
“… the earth abideth for ever.” — Ecclesiastes 1:4
“… the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2Peter 3:10” (2)
A= permanent earth while B = earth will be burned up
Clearly A=B is FALSE
*********************
#3 “Seeing God
“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30
“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18” (3)
Clearly A=B is FALSE
****************
#4 “The Power of God
“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26
“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19” (4)
Clearly A=B is False
****************
#5 “Personal Injury
“…thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. ” — Exodus 21:23-25
“…ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” — Matthew 5:39” (5)
Clearly A=B is FALSE
**************
Thus at this round PRO has used other sources to show five contradictions. These are not invented by PRO, but gleaned from an outside source as documented in the footnotes.
It may be seen that the contradictions generally show a “disagreement “ between the Old and the New Testaments, but this debate takes the Bible to be “ the universe of the total text of the Bible as a single work contained in the text from Genesis to Revelation.” [ as defined in round #1 ]
Round 3
Con
#5
About time. So you start off with adding to the scripture, typical.
" “you DO NOT HAVE to keep the Sabbath”
Clearly A = B is FALSE"
Now you know you did read no scripture like that.
That statement shonough is FALSE.
You made this statement of yours to contradict the Bible.
You can't pull an underhanded shot like that to get away with it. You got to find bible to contradict with bible.
Anybody almost can make up their own statement to contradict the Bible.
I never thought I would see a lot of the same things from you all .
Many of these debates, the same so called contradictions are brought up.
I just sure to make it easy on myself with copying and pasting my responses from other debates on the same subjects.
Ecclesiastes 1 is dealing with context of everything else changing such as the generations while the earth itself stays as is as always during the changing times and ages.
Ecclesiastes 1 and 4
"A generation comes[o] and a generation goes,[p]
but the earth remains[q] the same[r] through the ages."
About Genesis 32, let me copy and paste from what I already said about that and any other responses applicably so .
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."
Onto the book of Judges.
First off , this verse in the book of Judges the first chapter, verse 19 did not say anything about God being powerless or not being able to do it.
If you understood the context in this chapter of Judges and I had to take some time myself, it's dealing with the people of Israel going into battle. Actually going back a chapter going backwards into the last book right before Judges, which is the book of Joshua , helps build the situation.
I can say at face value , the LORD was with Judah. Doesn't mean the LORD decided to help the fight against the chariots fitted with iron. So the actual question would be, why didn't the LORD help the children of Israel triumph?
Would the answer really strengthen your position?
I doubt it.
Just dealing with the text as written, based off that alone, we don't actually read the words "God was powerless or unable".
Judges 1
"19 The Lord was with the men of Judah. They conquered[ad] the hill country, but they could not[ae] conquer the people living in the coastal plain"
The eye for an eye and turn the other cheek example, you're simply confusing a change in law with a contradiction.
One is out of the old testament, the other is out of the new.
For instance, the change in the dietary laws, the burnt offerings.
When you get to the new testament, it shows all those other things as a shadow to the things to come. The offering for atonement was that BODY. Which they tore down, but in three days ......oh....it rose again .
If you have any new subjects, offer them up. Let's get something new.
Like I say as a reminder to you guys, don't just regurgitate what atheists think and post on a website. Know for yourself, see for yourself because some of these things, when you read them, you may find yourself thinking twice.
Pro
#6
To keep this debate on track, PRO will answer the points (?) made by -con-.
#1 “The Sabbath Day
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” — Exodus 20:8
Linguistically this is a command ( i.e. You MUST ). Also the Sabbath starts Friday at sunset. In the New Testament ( e.g. Romans ) this “command” is broken, as Christians took Sunday as a “Holy Day” ( but it is NOT the Old Testament Sabbath). Therefore a careful reading of the Bible shows that “must” morphs into “not necessary”. The quotes here are used for paraphrasing the concepts but not a quote from the Bible itself. All Bible quotes will be indexed.
This fits as a literary contradiction ( but NOT a religious contradiction ). My opponent -con- says “You made this statement of yours to contradict the Bible. “ It is shown that LINGUISTICALLY the verses cited are examples of a literary contradiction.
*************************
#2 “ The Permanence of Earth
Here even -con- cites the contradiction. First the Old testament states that the Earth is permanent ( where -con- states” “Ecclesiastes 1 and 4 "the earth remains the same through the ages."”) Also -con- states that “the earth itself stays as is as always during the changing times and ages.” Yet the New Testament states that “the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” — 2 Peter 3:10” That is a contradiction.
So it is shown that the Earth cannot be at once permanent and nonpermanent.
*************************************
#3 “Seeing God”
Here -con- himself admits to the contradiction that no man has seen God ever ( per John ), and then -con- admits that both Moses and Jacob saw God and lived. He then states “So no man has seen God . That is until the exception by the mercy of God.”
But “it's not an exception, it's a logical contradiction. “ (1)
Syllogistically we find
If no man sees God
And Moses sees God
Then Moses is no man. ( Yet Moses was a man, so either he did not see God, which is a contradiction, or the premise “no man sees God” is a contradiction. ) ( or Moses was not a man - which is still a contradiction. ).
The same process could be used with Jacob.
It is shown that the term “no one” is different from “no one except these two”
**********************************************
#4 “The Power of God
So we see that everything is possible ….unless the enemy has iron chariots. Again it is an exception which in itself is a contradiction..
*****************************
#5 “Personal Injury
So what do we do? The Bible says to seek revenge in equal measure, then later says give forgiveness.
Then -con- says “ you're simply confusing a change in law with a contradiction. “
PRO responds that if the statement A is in the Bible and statement NOT A is also found there, then a literary contradiction exists. PRO has shown five examples yet -con- has failed to disprove the existence of any of these contradictions.
Later -con- points out that one statement is from the Old Testament and one is from the New Testament . PRO states that in round #1 the Bible was defined as a single work ( it shall mean the universe of the total text of the Bible as a single work contained in the text from Genesis to Revelation.). The definition was not challenged by -con-.
In round #2 PRO stated “It may be seen that the contradictions generally show a “disagreement “ between the Old and the New Testaments, but this debate takes the Bible to be “ the universe of the total text of the Bible as a single work contained in the text from Genesis to Revelation.” [ as defined in round #1 ].
Again PRO states that these examples are merely literary contradictions and are not being argued as religious contradictions.
Round 4
Con
#7
I'm sorry but its difficult following what you're saying. You're using a lot of technical jargon with the "point A and B" rhetoric.
It's looks like you're rejecting my responses and not quoting the scripture verbatim.
I will quote verbatim because it'll be verified with the actual text in question versus what I can just fabricate being erroneous or dishonest.
Again it looks like you're rejecting my responses so I'll reiterate, paraphrase them.
I next round I suggest to you to drop a lot of the technical lingo and refute my explanations as not fitting the contexts of each biblical passage.
From what I did get, you're misrepresenting me . I never said these passages do indeed contradict.
I went line upon line with the scripture proving that when you understand context, nothing is in conflict.
Now when you don't know any scripture and have not studied the book, and being close minded, all you can say is "no, these passages conflict".
You should be able to refute whether my explanation of the context fits the text or not .
But it would take studying on your part. You can be honest and say you will not be studying these things or you can lie and say the opposite.
Regarding the sabbath day, unless you find me scripture, quote it verbatim so I know you're not just making it up,where it says " don't keep the sabbath day". Otherwise you're just giving me what you think of a text making shipwreck of it .
Just that simple. If you can't get that scripture, your point is moot .
About Ecclesiastes 1 and 4, your statement is "permanence of the earth".
Ecclesiastes 1 and 4 says: "A generation comes[o] and a generation goes,[p]
but the earth remains[q] the same[r] through the ages.[s]"
Your statement:
"The Permanence of Earth".
Ecclesiastes 1 and 4 says: "A generation comes[o] and a generation goes,[p]
but the earth remains[q] the same[r] through the ages.[s]"
Your statement:
"The Permanence of Earth".
I don't find your statement in that verse anywhere which means you're fabricating things to conflict with the Bible.
If you can't do any better than that, you shouldn't of taken a challenge you're unprepared for.
The book of Ecclesiastes is a book of times and seasons. The changing of times and seasons.
The changing of times and seasons.
The earth remains what it is during those ages and times.
Now instead of rejecting that, go back , dive deep and study.
In regards to seeing God, particularly face to face. I believe I provided scripture about Moses seeing God. I think you or others would say being that there's a scripture that says no man have seen God at anytime and there's a scripture about Moses seeing Him, you cry contradiction.
Then you close the book in ignorance. You and others aren't prepared for the exception I provided.
No man have seen God except those of God. Moses was of God. See, not any man, any man can't just see Him.
It's alright, the contradictions you thought existed don't have to take away the disbelief in the bible. But clearly the things called contradictions can't be used to discredit or dismiss the Bible.
In the book of Judges, let's read what it says. I'm not going to add my words to the text and I am not going to accept you adding your thoughts to the text. I don't want what you think. You can choose what you want to think and use that to contradict scripture all day.
You got to have bible to contradict bible ...not your thoughts that contradict it.....two different things.
Alright so here is Judges 1 and 19.
"19 The Lord was with the men of Judah. They conquered[ad] the hill country, but THEY could not[ae] conquer the people living in the coastal plain"
Now it's either poor reading comprehension on your part or your thoughts are lying to you. Text reads "but THEY "....."but THEY "....."THEY ". It reads "but they could not conquer the people". Don't lie on the scripture and say we read "God could not conquer ".
The text says " but they could not conquer the people ". Your thoughts are "but God could not conquer the people ". You're using your thoughts to contradict the passage. That's not a biblical contradiction. That's you that is in conflict with the bible.
We don't read "God was powerless "......"God was unable "....."God could not conquer "........none of that.
Only question we're left with is why couldn't they conquer or why God did not help them conquer.
Like I say, will the answer help you? Further explanation is not going to help you. But hey, I'm willing to break it down for the sake of understanding and learning. But those crying contradiction are the ones not looking to learn anything.
Speaking on the law change once more, when the new law comes in , it's different from the old law. Which law to follow is not controversial. They simply do not contradict because one is old or the former and the other is new or a change to the law .
You may not accept this but it is what it is...
In Matthew 5 we have the examples of "you heard it said" like knowing or hearing about the old times.
21 “You have heard that it was said to an older generation,[x] ‘Do not murder,’[y] and ‘whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.’[z] 22 But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother[aa] will be subjected to judgment."
There is no argument over which one is to be followed. Can a case be made for a contradiction here?
Here Jesus says what is subjected to judgment. This is a modification. A change, an amendment, no conflict.
Now in the new testament, it starts with anger.
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’[am] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. "
33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to an older generation,[aq] ‘Do not break an oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’[ar] 34 But I say to you, do not take oaths at all"
These are just more examples about CHANGES. With that last one , Jesus didn't say in " old times it was said what I'm saying now". That would be contrary. He acknowledges the past before He declares what it is of the present day. He specifically states the past first to let you know "hey here's where the change is coming in because I'm changing some things". He's not twisting up things saying what He's saying is what was said in the past.
We reading what we started with and seeing where and when the change was applied.
Pro
#8
Now we find ourselves nearing the end of the debate. PRO is concerned that -con- is trying to morph this “debate” into some kind of “conversation”. PRO will endeavor to keep this series of statements congruent with the elements of a debate.
The position of -con- is that there are no contradictions in the Bible, not even one.
This then means that all PRO has to do is to show just one example where a verse states something that another verse “contradicts” ( or states to the contrary ). PRO has shown not less than five verses in contradiction. To wit;
#1 Exodus 20:8 and Romans 14:5
#2 Ecclesiastes 1:4 and 2 Peter 3:10
#3 Genesis 32:30 and John 1:18
#4 Judges 1:19 and Matthew 19:26
#5 Exodus 21:23-25 and Matthew 5:39
Notice that PRO is giving the source but not the text as the text has been iterated at least twice prior.
The defense from -con- does not refute any of the pair of verses, but rather diverts into a consideration of the “context of the Bible” This is different from the debate as posted. PRO defined terms which were accepted by -con-. Then later -con- wants to change the definitions EX POST FACTO as needed to fit his defense. It is evident that -con- should have defined terms in round #1, but that was left for PRO to do EX ANTE.
My opponent -con- has said he (or she ) rejects PRO’s “explanations as not fitting the contexts of each biblical passage.” The debate is about ( e.g.) two verses which are held to be in a state of contradiction with each other.
Contradiction had been defined earlier as being the state where one verse says the opposite of another, or at least both verses cannot be true at the same time. The cases here are keeping the Sabbath ( yes and no ), the earth lasting forever ( yes and no ) , one can see God ( yes and no ), God can do anything ( yes and no ), one can seek vengeance ( yes and no ).
The “argument” put forth by -con- is that these verses are not contradictions when taken in the context of the entire Bible. “I went line upon line with the scripture proving that when you understand context, nothing is in conflict.”, states -con-. This debate however is a debate about verses in contradiction, not a verse compared to the entire Bible.
Now -con- says “Regarding the sabbath day, unless you find me scripture, quote it verbatim so I know you're not just making it up,where it says " don't keep the sabbath day". Otherwise you're just giving me what you think of a text making shipwreck of it .” Well -con- here it is …”One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” (1)
Indeed Bruce Scott writing for the Friends of Israel Ministry seems initially to support -con’s- argument thus ..”there is no biblical text that clearly states, “You shall not keep the Sabbath.”” (2) Yet later he supports PRO’s position that the New Covenant rejected the heavily rigid Sabbath with a new day that separates the Christian from the Jew. “Christians, who customarily met on Sunday (Acts 20:7)—the day the Lord Jesus was resurrected—called their day of worship the Sabbath. (3) “ and further “Whatever the historical or theological reason for claiming Sunday to be the Sabbath, the claim is false. The Bible clearly states that the Sabbath is not the first day of the week, but rather the seventh (Exodus 20:10–11). Christians, therefore, are not keeping the Sabbath when they worship on Sunday.” (4) Paul had little issue with this . See again Romans 14:5.
Now about the Earth being permanent or not, one need only turn to the Christian Apologetics Ministry to read thus … ”Abides forever
- Psalm 104:5, “He established the earth upon its foundations So that it will not totter forever and ever.”
- Ecclesiastes 1:4, “A generation goes and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever.” Does not abide forever
- Isaiah 65:17, “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, And the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind.”
- 2 Peter 3:10, “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.” (4)
PRO could continue, but the hour is late, and -con- is beginning to show mores ad hominem.
Round 5
Con
#9
"The position of -con- is that there are no contradictions in the Bible, not even one."
Well to be accurate, I'm against you finding one. The topic is not that there are none. I don't know everything and as a fair assessment, paint me not as a know-it-all " you can't tell me nothing" character.
Just because there's a rebuttal to every point, that's nothing to do with saying there are no contradictions. You just thought you had some.
"Notice that PRO is giving the source but not the text as the text has been iterated at least twice prior."
That's a fallacy on your part. We need to verify you're not fabricating things. You putting things in your own words and are we supposed to just believe these things that you think are contradictions?
Even a newborn wouldn't buy that. They don't have any money just coming out the womb.
It's clear that you're just rejecting the explanations. You can't even disprove them .
You just have circular points of "well the scripture says what it says. It contradicts ''.
Putting the truth out there that you don't know enough about scripture to refute my explanation is what you can call an attack, well I defend my position. Defending it may mean to go into offense.
I think all you have to say is because two statements exist that appear to contradict, it's a hands down contradiction.
We can make contradictions out of anything and everything if we approach things so shallow like that.
These so called contradictions are claimed from looking at everything on the surface level.
Judging a book by it's cover without going deeper into the book is faulty.
I say look left. You look right. Another person heard me tell you look left . I tell that other person, you looked in the correct direction. That other says "no" and that you contradicted or I'm telling a contradiction. But that's how it appears on the surface.
When you want to, when you're open to investigate and learn, there was no contradiction.
You look to my left which was your direction of right. I explain to the other person, this is how you and I communicate.
You have to seek the explanations and question them . Don't get locked into a corner and say "la,la,la,la"......."these are two conflicting statements, read them both , do you see?"
In a discussion like this in which we are disputing, you should expect explanation to clear things up .
Maybe you were expecting by the title of the topic, it meant that you can't find two superficial conflicting statements. But a contradiction, a genuine contradiction has to be that in nature to the core.
Something can appear as a superficial contradiction but not truly one. That's why I used the word BONAFIDE.
In my example I gave about left and right, it read as a contradiction, but in nature it wasn't. So no true contradiction existed there.
When you study, learn and know scripture line upon line, you'll see what you're reading just at one or two lines won't make a case for your position here .
But you have to deal with the explanations.
Let me give you this example of the Bible I haven't seen anyone present as a so called contradiction.
In the book of John chapter 5, it says the Father judges no man.
In verse 22 " For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, "
Acts 17 it conveys God will judge.
"30 The times of this ignorance God overlooked, but now He commandeth all men everywhere to repent,
31 because He hath appointed a Day in which He will judge the world"
I can read these passages and say "oh contradiction, let me put this book down, close it". That rejecting attitude will leave you with a false conclusion.
You have to want to learn about all these passages to get understanding. If you're not open to it, it doesn't matter what anybody says to help you get clarification.
First you have to understand many passages about the relationship of the Father and Son.
I won't get into a whole lot of it now. I'll try to make a couple of simple illustrations. As the scripture says about understanding earthly things to understanding the heavenly things.
I say I'm going to work . You say you're going to work although you're going to school. In a different way to view it, it can be understood as work. You do work in a classroom and you do homework at home. Nothing at conflict here in spite of how it looks on the surface.
The Father doesn't judge because it's been appointed to the Son to do, understood. The Son has the Spirit of the Father to judge with. So in that light, the Father which is the Spirit of God judges by that man Jesus Christ.
Likewise I leave it to my son or someone to do a job for me. But how do they do the job? Like I would do it or have my way, my technique, my attitude, my conduct but it's not me . It's not me as I am but my spirit, my principle, my virtue, my criteria, my rule, etc .
Like I said, when you understand the relationship like Him being the express image of His person , all of these passages become clear and rightly divided.
Just in straightforward natural terms, people related to one another share an image, character traits and common tendencies.
Closing it out with this, that is you have to want to learn about all these passages to get understanding. This way your open mind will allow for clarity and all things not conflict but harmonize.
Pro
#10
This debate was proposed by -con-. In round #1, -con- did not define the terms to be used in the debate. PRO then proceeded to define the terms "bonafide", "biblical" and "contradiction".
These terms were not rejected by -con- but rather accepted by the absence of comment.
In an earlier round PRO stated “Contradiction had been defined earlier as being the state where one verse says the opposite of another, or at least both verses cannot be true at the same time. The cases here are keeping the Sabbath ( yes and no ), the earth lasting forever ( yes and no ) , one can see God ( yes and no ), God can do anything ( yes and no ), one can seek vengeance ( yes and no ).
My opponent -con- continues to deny any contradiction, but offers only the Bible context as refutation. This is in opposition to the content of this debate wherein “verse A” need only be compared with “verse B”. Had -con- wanted a different debate, -con- should have set the parameters.
So, are there contradictions? What do others have to say?
Reading from Christianity.org.UK we see…
” ….many Christians will perform extraordinary mental gymnastics to attempt to prove that there are no contradictions in the book.
“But if we study the Bible carefully and deeply, and are honest about what we find, we have to conclude otherwise. Does the Bible contain contradictions? Yes.” (1)
Looking at the website Rethink, Jeffery Curtis Poor states …
“Does the Bible contradict itself?
“Most Christians will answer that question with an emphatic “No.” Contradictions in the Bible are seen as a crack in the foundation of Christians. Therefore there cannot be any in God’s Word.
“But what I’ve seen is that this fear keeps many Christians from looking too closely at what’s actually going on in the Bible. To make matters worse, when a Christian brings up a question about a contradiction in the Bible, they are often just shut down and told to just have faith. “ (2)
Other writers also look at contradictions….“from a critical secular perspective includ[ing] the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus by Baruch Spinoza, the Dictionnaire philosophique of Voltaire, the Encyclopédie of Denis Diderot and The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine,” (3)
“William Henry Burr produced a list of 144 self-contradictions in the Bible.”(4)
In closing here are final thoughts to consider…”“Now, we need to understand what this means. It does not mean that the Bible is unreliable, that it is ‘flawed’. It is not denying that it is the revealed truth of God, the word of God. But, nonetheless, it contains contradictions.” (5)
Most of the contradictions are seen as “Old Testament” versus “New Testament”, and this is something that Christians should embrace.
“While the Bible is a unified book, there are differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament.” (6)
“The Old Testament is the first division of the Christian Bible. It is a collection of books which varies from church to church and dates earlier than the New Testament. The New Testament is the second major division of the Christian Bible. It is also known as the New Law or New Covenant.” (7)
Therefore at the end of this debate, it is shown that bonafide Biblical contradictions do exist, however those contradictions are more the result of an evolution in some populations from Judaism to Christianity.
- https://www.christianity.org.uk/article/does-the-bible-contradict-itself
- https://www.rethinknow.org/does-the-bible-contradict-itself/
- Paine, Thomas. Writings of Thomas Paine — Volume 4 (1794–1796): the Age of Reason by Paine.
- Burr, WH., Self-Contradictions of the Bible, 1860, reprinted Library of Alexandria, 1987.
- https://www.christianity.org.uk/article/does-the-bible-contradict-itself
- https://www.gotquestions.org/difference-old-new-testaments.html
- https://www.diffen.com/difference/New_Testament_vs_Old_Testament
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con fails to set definitions or a framework in the description.
Pro points this out and gives his own, giving Con the chance to contest them. Con ignores this and demands to see the biblical contradictions.
Pro cites verses on revenge & forgiveness, the permanence of the Earth & its eventual destruction, God’s omnipotence & inability to conquer his enemies, as well as no man ever seeing God’s face. (With the exception of Moses.)
Con tries to double-down by explaining the context of these verses, but this comes off more as a desperate plea to maintain his narrative.
Pro wisely pointed out that the verses were confirmed by an outside source and the wording of the verses makes misinterpretation very unlikely.
It’s settled.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro commits to a tactic of spending a round on setup before getting to any point. Which gave con ample opportunity to disagree with any of it...
Pro gives a list of 6 items...
1. Con shot himself in the foot at the start of R3, with a bad attempt at poisoning the well saying pro made up the bible quotes. Pro defends that poisoning the well is off topic, leaving which is the holy day a contradiction. Con goes heavy on this, so I googled if the quote is in the bible or not, it is.
2. Con hurts himself with formatting; following "#2 “ The Permanence of Earth" through the debate should be an easy task, instead it's stuffed in the middle of other points. A thematic reply can be good, but it hardly would have been difficult to block quote him. I will say that pro is reaching a bit with this one, as the Earth having been unchanged through the ages, doesn't seem to imply an absolute forever.
3. Ok, con really really shot himself in the foot, showing Exodus to be internally inconsistent (citing the New Testament to defend the old, has quite the time gap before it was corrected).
"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". "
4. Con does better with the chariots example, as God not using his power does not deny said power. Pro lazily extends.
5. Con echoes my thought in defense of the eye for an eye. It was pretty clearly Jesus directly saying we should update that and not be so vengeful. Pro defends by leaning on semantics; I find it questionable in strength, yet also plays against con's own argument about God's face in Exodus (always good to use a Catch-22 on someone).
...
The organization con used in R5 hurt my eyes to look at. At this point he had attempted to win by saying pro lied about the bible, and failed; right there that would be enough to make an award against him.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
I have been in this topic debate, and read a number of others on the same subject. I am impressed with Con's commitment to conveying their understanding of the scriptures. However the form, and conduct of Con, in this debate, (as in others), is borderline insulting. Pro did a great job defining and setting up the context, which was not refuted. Pro provided examples and explained why they are perceived as contradictions, and bonafide as well. Con did not effectively refute them, nor can they based on the resolution, without proving that the interpretation of a contradiction is not genuine. if I could, I would award conduct points as well again Con.
Your supposition is incorrect.
I suppose then that intention of the debate then would be for the Con to find a contradiction that Pro could not explain or "un-contradict"?
@davidaz ......Since you have asked " Is the question "Can you find a contradiction" or "Can you prove a contradiction"?" , I would direct you to the title of the debate ( which Mall had iterated). That title being "You can find a bonafide biblical contradiction."
Hmmmm . . . This is a hard one to vote for. Is the question "Can you find a contradiction" or "Can you prove a contradiction"?
I've already read the debate.
Please help me out you two.
What’s Pro’s approach?