Instigator / Con
1
1492
rating
335
debates
40.9%
won
Topic
#4370
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
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Mall
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
0
1500
rating
8
debates
50.0%
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
It's on you comrade.
All bible references are from the New International Version using biblegateway.com.
Matthew 19:26: Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Judges 1:19: The Lord was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron.
If God was indeed fighting for them, and all things are possible with Him, why could He not combat chariots fitted with iron? For an omnipotent God, it shouldn't be too difficult. The only logical conclusion is that God did not help them to combat the chariots fitted with iron, which contradicts "The Lord was with the men of Judah."
Ecclesiastes 1:4: Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever.
1 John 2:18: Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.
There are so many things wrong with this. For one, they contradict each other. How can this be the last hour, but the earth remains forever? They also contradict reality. We must realize that this was written around 1800 years ago at the least, meaning that that was the "last hour." It is fair to say that we live in a very different time now, so any reasonable interpretation of "last hour" would imply that the world already should have ended. Even if we do some logical acrobatics with the term last hour, we also know that the earth will not last for ever, as is suggested by evidence based science. (See my sources.)
I'll leave it at this, as these are quite obvious contradictions.
Sources:
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/earth-end/ (See especially: 4.) Swallowed or ejected?)
Round 2
"If God was indeed fighting for them".
The scripture says "but they were unable to drive the people from the plains".
You said""If God was indeed fighting for them".
The scripture said"but they were unable to drive the people from the plains".
Notice how it's your words compared to what's written. This is what will get you all tripped over something not even there. Then you settle with thinking up a conclusion now calling out a contradiction falsely. Oh it's true to you. That's why this is broached.
I'll say again like I said to another individual that brought up the book of Judges. As we read "they were unable to drive the people from the plains", we don't read "God was powerless " or "God was unable and overpowered ".
"If God was indeed fighting for them". Would there really be an "IF" or a question such as the one you put forth given there was a verse written" God was fighting but failed "?
The verse would answer that question. But because there isn't, now you can just postulate in your mind, draw your own conclusions and the ultimate verdict, "ahhh, it's a contradiction here".
Whoa, slow down. Go back over the passage again. It said "but they were unable to drive the people from the plains".
So the only entity not powerful enough there was the "they" , the people identified there in that context.
That's really it. We can go further in depth with it. But I wanted to at least point out the observation there with that first error that pretty much negates the rest of that case .
"There are so many things wrong with this. For one, they contradict each other. How can this be the last hour, but the earth remains forever? "
You're just reaching now. It can be "the last hour " for a lot of things. Like this is the last hour to work until I'm off. Nothing to do with the world ending or continuing. This is the last hour of the game, last hour of me playing the game, last hour of the whatever.
"It is fair to say that we live in a very different time now, so any reasonable interpretation of "last hour" would imply that the world already should have ended. "
You have to learn from scripture what "last hour" means. Nevermind what it means to you. Once you have scripture interpret itself, you won't get confounded.
You may be thinking of 60 minutes. But that's you.
"If God was indeed fighting for them".The scripture says "but they were unable to drive the people from the plains".You said""If God was indeed fighting for them".The scripture said"but they were unable to drive the people from the plains".Notice how it's your words compared to what's written. This is what will get you all tripped over something not even there. Then you settle with thinking up a conclusion now calling out a contradiction falsely. Oh it's true to you. That's why this is broached.
The scripture doesn't just say "but they were unable to drive the people from the plains." You can't just chop off half the quote and call it done. You decidedly ignored the part which says "The Lord was with the men of Judah." Let's try this again:
God was with them. ("The Lord was with the men of Judah.")
With God all things are possible. ("but with God all things are possible.")
It was not possible for them to drive out the people of the plains. ("but they were unable to drive the people from the plains")
So God was with them, and with God all things were possible, but there was something that was not possible for them. That's a simply contradiction. The rest of your argument against this contradiction is just you continuing to act like "but they were unable to drive the people from the plains" was the only thing that the passage said, (once again, it wasn't) so I'll skip it, and go straight to your thoughts on the second contradiction.
You're just reaching now. It can be "the last hour " for a lot of things. Like this is the last hour to work until I'm off. Nothing to do with the world ending or continuing. This is the last hour of the game, last hour of me playing the game, last hour of the whatever."It is fair to say that we live in a very different time now, so any reasonable interpretation of "last hour" would imply that the world already should have ended. "You have to learn from scripture what "last hour" means. Nevermind what it means to you. Once you have scripture interpret itself, you won't get confounded.You may be thinking of 60 minutes. But that's you.
You say that I have to learn from scripture what "last hour" means. You seem to know what it means, so please do tell! I would help your argument a good deal if you could provide an interpretation of this quote which does not mean the end of the world will someday come. Until then I'm sticking with my interpretation. Also, if you are going to complain that I am interpreting it instead of just taking it at face value, should I have read this as "this is the last 60 minutes which will ever exist" instead? Unless we're talking about a literal interpretation, no, I'm not thinking of 60 minutes. Also yes, a literal interpretation would necessarily entail "hour" meaning "60 minutes":
Hour - 60 minutes; one of the 24 parts that a day is divided into
I'm not saying that we have to take the bible literally, but if we don't, then you'll need to provide your interpretation, and it will need to be within reason.
Dropped point:
Evidence would suggest that the sun will someday destroy the earth.
Round 3
"The scripture doesn't just say "but they were unable to drive the people from the plains." You can't just chop off half the quote and call it done. You decidedly ignored the part which says "The Lord was with the men of Judah." Let's try this again:
God was with them. ("The Lord was with the men of Judah.")
With God all things are possible. ("but with God all things are possible.")
It was not possible for them to drive out the people of the plains. ("but they were unable to drive the people from the plains") "
Ok, God was with them. You're still stuck. There's no verse that says the words "God was powerless and this task was impossible for Him" . If there was a verse as that, then you can use it to claim it contradicts with the verse that says "with God all things are possible" if that's how the scripture puts it.
All you have is what they couldn't do and your assumption of God.
I'll show you right here.
"So God was with them, and with God all things were possible, but there was something that was not possible for them. That's a simply contradiction."
You say "there was something that was not possible for them". What was that something?
Whatever you say, READ IT . Find me where it says what you say as written concerning "that something".
Again, the verse is contradicting your personal interpretation. It's not contradicting the Bible.
''The rest of your argument against this contradiction is just you continuing to act like "but they were unable to drive the people from the plains" was the only thing that the passage said, (once again, it wasn't) so I'll skip it"
No don't run. I'm only reading the verse as written. Not adding anything to it. You know there are no words in it such as "God was unable ". That's just a thought you getting reading the verse. When you read these scriptures, you're thoughts are not to be added to the text.
Maybe you're evasive in asking the question but why didn't God help them triumph?
Don't assume God couldn't, but why didn't He?
But see any explanation would just steer you away from making a contradiction case so in your position, I guess asking those questions wouldn't help you.
"You say that I have to learn from scripture what "last hour" means. You seem to know what it means, so please do tell! I would help your argument a good deal if you could provide an interpretation of this quote which does not mean the end of the world will someday come. "
There is no "an interpretation". It's just THE interpretation. Scripture says to speak as the oracles of God and Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. So I'm only telling what's written in scripture.
So let's make this real simple, the context in Ecclesiastes is talking about other things changing while the world forever abides with no change. The comparison is between the constant change of times while the earth remains DURING THOSE CHANGES.
The generations come and go while, while , while the earth remains. The earth remains always as the generations come and go.
"Until then I'm sticking with my interpretation."
That's the problem with many of you thinking the scripture is subject to private interpretation. It is of none what so ever.
If that was the case, there wouldn't be a shared belief system according to as it is written. Not according to what you think, I think or anybody but to as it is written.
"Also, if you are going to complain that I am interpreting it instead of just taking it at face value, should I have read this as "this is the last 60 minutes which will ever exist" instead? Unless we're talking about a literal interpretation, no, I'm not thinking of 60 minutes. Also yes, a literal interpretation would necessarily entail "hour" meaning "60 minutes": "
If "face value" means according to as it written, that's what the Bible says. See , not everything works the same way. All books can't be read the same way . So the context in what your reading is important because you have to read without adding to scripture or taking away. Whatever that context says as written what the last hour, or last days, or last generation is , that's what it is. You're getting the biblical explanation. Not an explanation you can come up with because the Bible would already have one prepared. You just report on it. Makes sense enough.
"I'm not saying that we have to take the bible literally, but if we don't, then you'll need to provide your interpretation, and it will need to be within reason."
Scriptures of no private interpretation.
Now, to progress this along, if you want to ask those questions that I posed earlier about the book of Judges you can. If you think you can argue what I say after answering those questions, have at it.
Ok, God was with them. You're still stuck. There's no verse that says the words "God was powerless and this task was impossible for Him" . If there was a verse as that, then you can use it to claim it contradicts with the verse that says "with God all things are possible" if that's how the scripture puts it.
You seem to keep missing the point here: It does not say that "God was powerless and the task was impossible for Him," but it does say this:
God was with them.
All things are possible with God. (Notice, it doesn't just say God can do all things, it says all things are possible with God!)
they were unable to drive the people from the plains,
Simple enough.
No don't run. I'm only reading the verse as written. Not adding anything to it. You know there are no words in it such as "God was unable ". That's just a thought you getting reading the verse. When you read these scriptures, you're thoughts are not to be added to the text.
You weren't so much adding anything to it as subtracting from it. You weren't reading it as written, you were reading the part of it that you wanted to focus on as written. See my previous argument for a description of why the rest of the verse is relevant to the existence of a contradiction, and thus cannot be ignored.
Maybe you're evasive in asking the question but why didn't God help them triumph?Don't assume God couldn't, but why didn't He?
You seem to always ignore a minimum of one important thing. "God was with them." I know it doesn't say "God was helping them." but it also says "All things are possible with God." and not "All things are possible while being helped by God." There is still enough here for a contradiction.
Now, a lot of your argument is all about "personal interpretation" versus "correct interpretation." Okay, I shouldn't use my personal interpretation. Okay, different things must be read in different ways. If that's the case, then as I requested in my previous argument, share the "correct interpretation" of each individual phrase, or we can just stick to my interpretation, and I'll consider this point dropped.
Now, to progress this along, if you want to ask those questions that I posed earlier about the book of Judges you can. If you think you can argue what I say after answering those questions, have at it.
I'm a bit confused. Which questions specifically?
Round 4
"You seem to keep missing the point here: It does not say that "God was powerless and the task was impossible for Him," but it does say this:
God was with them."
My response is a big SO WHAT?
See you say I'm missing "God was with them ". But apparently what you are missing big time is that I'm not assuming because God was with them , that automatically means it was His plan to help them prevail.
The big mistake you're making which is adding to the text with your assumption of " Well God must of been powerless". Anything we can't read is only your thoughts. I want you to get that.
This assumption of yours comes about indicative by this response you made below.
"With God all things are possible. ("but with God all things are possible.")"
Your thought is "all things possible with God so therefore if I find a situation where God was present but something failed, I have to assume He failed regardless if I actually read that and that would be correct". All that is your thought process but you can't read that anywhere.
Then you find scripture that says "but they were unable to drive the people from the plains" and you read the words" they were unable ". But your assumption, notice this please, your assumption tells you the words " God was unable".
Really have to be careful to not add things to the book. You got to know where to stop where the book does.
People think they find contradictions in the bible but the contradicting ideas in their head , their personal ideas are contracting the bible. Got to rightly divide the scriptures.
"Notice, it doesn't just say God can do all things, it says all things are possible with God!)"
Well notice this. It said "possible" meaning a thing can happen with God but not required to. Again, why didn't God help the folks prevail? Was He required to?
Difference between being unable to do something versus just not doing it.
"You weren't so much adding anything to it as subtracting from it. You weren't reading it as written, you were reading the part of it that you wanted to focus on as written."
Oh what part do you think I take away from the verse?
"There is still enough here for a contradiction."
That contradiction is in your head between your thoughts and the text. Not text between text.
This is a really good discussion because it encourages us to really look at words and see where the bible ends and we begin.
The scripture mentions all things are possible with God. The scripture also mentions God was present with people and the people failed. The text doesn't read God failed with them or they failed because God failed. The scripture stops at "they were unable" so saying "they were unable"......." as God was unable ", the "as God was unable " part would be added on. The part of "God was unable" is adding to it. This is where we can see what is being added.
The scripture stops at "they were unable ". You pick it up from there adding"God was unable ".
If you would of read a verse that God was unable or not Almighty or only some things are possible, you may have a case still contingent upon the context.
"If that's the case, then as I requested in my previous argument, share the "correct interpretation" of each individual phrase, or we can just stick to my interpretation, and I'll consider this point dropped."
The correct interpretation is what we've been going over about adding to text. When you add to the text the way you've done, you get the wrong meaning or interpretation of the text.
So to avoid this, you don't add what you think after reading the verse.
Proverbs 30:6
"Do not add to his words,
lest he reprove you, and prove you to be a liar"
You run the risk of lying on the scripture and it's very easy to do that reading the book, then coming up with an opinion subjecting it to private interpretation.
Now if you have it in your mind that if I wasn't going to explain this to you, you were just going to use your own ideas to conclude contradictions in the bible, then you can only legitimately make a case based on your own opinions, not fact.
The issue with that which is apparent is that it's subjective. Meaning we can call anything contradictions just by our subjective reading. So to be fair, accurate and truthful, we have to have an objective platform here.
You don't add or take away, neither shall I. Even Steven.
I'm not adding anything. I'm not taking anything away although you claim I have done that. You can try to show me where I have next round and I can debunk that.
"I'm a bit confused. Which questions specifically?"
Come on , follow this debate closely.
"You say "there was something that was not possible for them". What was that something?"
"Maybe you're evasive in asking the question but why didn't God help them triumph?"
"Don't assume God couldn't, but why didn't He?"
Forfeited
Round 5
I'm just going to reiterate the following from another discussion because this is really the basis of where these pseudo contradictions get fabricated.
What is the only biblically valid interpretation?
The only one where you're not found in a lie of the Bible. If you're in a lie, you're not correct, you're not in truth. If I have an invalid password, it's an incorrect password. To say my password is billy bob when it's really swordfish is not true.
Proverbs 30
"5 Every word of God is purified;[t]
he is like[u] a shield for those who take refuge in him.[v]
6 Do not add to his words,
lest he reprove you, and prove you to be a liar.[w]"
You add to the words by your own interpretation, it's invalid. The interpretation that you have can go no further than His words .
Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses, we have another in Deuteronomy 4:2
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you."
Any time you have thoughts of reason, logic, common sense, any personal interpretation, throw it out.
This was heavily demonstrated by the biblical contradictions debates. People think they understand one thing and find something that doesn't seem to be logical, their minds fill in the blanks and assume things into the context.
You may do that with secular books. Our minds are configured to plug in missing information. The bible is of a different read.
It's really that secular empirical approach that non believers in the bible take. I can show more scripture in regards to this but it more so applies to believers.
I'm trying to be objective in this topic. When anybody comes to read this book, don't calculate, don't add so that you get a trinity. Don't add or assume what makes sense . Don't apply your own definition of words. The context is in place for all of that.
The bible is the one book where the words have to stand on their own. I know it's habit when we read something we begin to rationalize based on other things we know and have learned via experience.
Those other things that form the understanding of them don't necessarily work the same way or can be applied the same with things regarded to be on a spiritual level. The contradictions are products of the way a person thinks of something next to the bible. When the bible doesn't conform, you call the bible a lie or contradicting.
For instance, the word hate. To a person from what they've learned about the word from their experience, it only means one thing. The meaning hate changes contexts in the bible. But having a preconceived notion of what you already know, you go into the bible reading this word, you're going to apply it the same way everywhere.
One more thing. I suggest to everyone, don't be discouraged or persuaded by anyone that context is insignificant. I believe there has been downplay on that here. Whoever is trying to downplay that is talking foolishness. I can have a topic on that as well.
Whoever comes forward on that exposes themselves.
Forfeited
I'm so sorry! I forgot about this. You probably would have won anyway though. Thank you for the debate.
bump