Diametrically Opposing Statements (Logical Contradictions) Cannot Be Logically Resolved As True

"90% of Galiban's argument is a red herring" This is my opponent justification for ignoring all of the information that proves him wrong. I can only shake my head. All of my opponents statements rest on the fact that he TARZAN assigned these statements are polar opposites and cannot be reconciled. I am stating that Tarzan completely ignores the context in which the statements were written. Notice he never addresses the fact they are not in the same sentence? It would have to read something like this for my opponent's logical proof to be accurate: God said "You know Jim, I would never punish you for your father's sin, but he is such a prick your gonna burn man!" This is a true opposing statement where one is false and one is true and irreconcilable. ""INCORRECT - two opposites in conjunction CANNOT both be true. The only person confused on this issue is Galiban. (A & ~A)"" Again it is Tarzan that placed them in the proof with the conjunction. Not the Bible and not Galiban. I explained to him and he ignored context. My proof is the relevant proof and only acceptable one that deals with the entire surrounding context. ""< This again is a blatant disregard of the context. Tarzan is putting a value on the statement that is not in the text. He is assuming the value of punish is the same. On top of that he takes two statements from two different books 40 years apart and places them in one statement and goes "See! Foolish God he is so silly!" Everything again shows that He is just plain wrong. He is Dodging the entirety of the argument by attempting to redefine. It is the only thing he can do to win the debate is make personal attacks and state "Me Tarzan, me is right". NOW to see that he actually agrees with the premise of the argument we see below: (Though he refuses to accept the values I place on punish because that would mean he is wrong. He is just denying the context of the Bible) ""< I hate father. I love mother. Thus, the conjunction would be more along the lines of (~F & M). This can obviously be true.>>"" EXACTLY! Wow, so he thinks that context clearly and logically changed how the "proof" should be written. (To be technically accurate the code above is not well written: see comments.) Now my opponent admits that the two statements can be resolved as true but must be rewritten with a new code. Logical implications must be accounted for. This is exactly what I did to his (A & ~A) He rewrote the code to adapt for the logical implications. I rewrote the code to adapt for the context. I assigned values to the context. He chooses not to and just assigned false to father. Bad coding but at least the attempt concedes it is possible to reconcile PERCEIVED inconsistencies through context. He holds to his argument because he felt the Bible wrote it poorly? Silly Bible, it wrote it 40 years apart in two different books to two different audiences. Lets attempt to apply his flawed thinking. Clearly I am wrong and the paragraph should be written more logically? I should have "made" two better statements? I love mother. I hate father. Theresa went home one day and her father told her to do chores and she rebuked him saying to him "I hate father." She then went into the living room and her mother whispers "Don't worry, I'll do your chores." the teenage girl whispers back "I love mother." Do we see any flaws? I love you & I hate you - These are the ways in which we would write and read this paragraph. It is never written to fit a code, the code must be written to fit what is written in the work we are digesting. Logic is implied in the statement but values are assigned by context. We do not write the information in a paragraph as you are suggesting it should be written. You can argue all day long the English language is illogical but this shows you are wrong and it also shows how you have taken the Bible out of context. "< " That was stating the context, which was already have shown you rejected. Shush. To summarize, Tarzan admits that when a logical inconsistency is met it must be written so it is logically consistent. My opponent refuses to admit that the Bible has different values assigned to all of the statements he is taking out of context. The logical implications are that the Bible is completely logical :) I also DISAGREE that this debate is not about the Bible. If Tarzan is entirely wrong in his understanding of the assigned values of the Biblical statements then he is wrong about the Bible being inconsistent. He is also then wrong in his symbolic "proof". HE MUST ignore the Bible to remain accurate in his "proof". To fully understand why my code is accurate we must come to understand some inherent concepts within the Bible to show that there is more information that Tarzan is IGNORING. He has been told these things, he is just at this point being academically dishonest in all of his attempts at interpretation. 1st. God is a person. He speaks in different times, to different people for different reasons. 2nd. God does things so that he will be just to those who deserve justice but allow for injustice to occur to those who are unjust, 3rd takes into account the innocent paying for the unjust. 3rd. God sees Nations as entities, in the same way we see nations but also companies. We allow a person to sue a company for damages for the decisions of the CEO. That entire company bears the burden. We also do this to nations. We made Germany pay back for years the cost of the war. The children who did not even fight paid the bill for the atrocities of their fathers. We must understand that God gives us personal responsibility of our Children. He will not overrule that responsibility. A crack addict's newborn will bear the same burden. God is referencing a system he has put in place that all people are under. It is called a corporate entity. This is defined as nations and families. We are held accountable for what we do for those under our authorities. As well those under our authorities bear the burden of our "wrongs". That is the implied logic (context) behind the statement "to the third and fourth generation God will punish the Children for the sins of the father." The second statement is directly taking the context of what nations did around Israel. Children were considered possessions of the parents in those nations and they could toss away their lives at a whim. There was even a religion that worshipped a god called Molech that demanded child sacrifice by fire. God was appalled by such abuse of his system. (Also why God authorized wiping out everyone in those nations. He was showing nothing, absolutely nothing, was good from such an abuse.) In those countries I could rape someone and then hand my son over to take my punishment and serve my time. I could do this until I ran out of children. This was an outright abuse of the established system from God. He did not allow this in Israel. Again I point to my proof above is the only proof between the two that is taking into context. Or, as Tarzan redefines it, "logical implications". I love how he redefines context as logical implications just to avoid losing the debate. Again pointing to Academic dishonesty. He is not denying the clear logic of my proposition, which everyone understands, but is unwilling, to admit I am right and there are more values needed to discern the biblical statements. He would have to thus concede the debate.