The Bible is an Inconsistent Document

Responses: >> "A:Noah and his family were giants." This is obviously false if you read Deuteronomy - Noah would have had to be both an Emim and an Anakim... but oops - God destroyed these races because they weren't in accord with Him. >> "A:The evidence is all around you.. there was very little water on the earth before the flood and now IT'S STILL FLOODED." This is also obviously false because many parts of the Middle East (and the rest of the world) are below sea level and if the whole world had flooded they would be under water still. Second, the Israelites crossed the Sinai Peninsula when leaving Egypt - the Sinai borders the larger oceans - if there was less water before the flood, they wouldn't have been able to part the Red Sea because it wouldn't have existed. Third, the Nile, Jordan, Tigris, and Euphrates pre-exist the flood. Clearly there was water in these places before the flood. This answer is laughable. >> ":The deficit could not wield a sword but could obviously perform some other military function." My opponent pretends that "fit for military service" and "capable of wielding a sword" are two different things. Those that serve in a military function that cannot fight are??? The answer is that they are either support personnel (that aren't really in the military anyway), or that they are incompetent at their jobs. Furthermore, the census takes into account MEN - support personnel would have been boys or women, not men "fit for military service." >> "A:Most of the animals were very young or newly born so MUCH more room" This still doesn't answer the inconsistency between 7:2, 7:9, and 6:19. In 6:19, God orders Noah to take every animal two-by-two. Then in 7:2, God tells Noah to take the clean ones by sevens and the unclean ones by twos. 7:9 states that they boarded the ark by twos. Even if they went by sevens, they could not have boarded by twos!! Note that my opponent does nothing to address the genetic viability of the populations of the animals OR the fact that 8:20 states "And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar." Where did all the animals come from if Noah "took of every clean beast" and burned them as an offering to God??? >> "A: I don't have an anwser to this, doesn't mean there isn't one! (Bible scholars, help?)" If you cannot reconcile this error in the bible, the resolution is fulfilled. There simply is no answer because hares do NOT chew their cud. >> "A:Has any dust ever entered the mouth of a snake? Highly probable as they spend their lives crawling on the ground." Again - laughable - the verse clearly states that the serpent shall EAT dust. Serpents to not EAT dust. Eat means to consume as food... Serpents do not EAT dirt. >> "A:These things along with weeds (tobacco, hemp etc) were caused when man sinned and all creation 'fell' away from God." Laughable - Somehow man's sin created new species of plant? Even though God said "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food" BEFORE MAN SINNED? >> "A:Humans rarely live past 100 NOW.. The earth was oxygen rich, everything (including plants, lizards and men) was bigger and MUCH healthier." Laughable - Then why was human life span in the Stone Age, Paleolithic, and Neolithic under 40 years?? Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason that the earth would have had a higher oxygen content in Biblical times. >> "A:His bowels spilled out after his carcass was eventually cut down" You have obviously not read the account of that field - there are six different propositions concerning it. Acts 1:18 & Mat 27:5-7 (Judas' Death) - The verses here state six different things: 1. The chief priests bought the field in question. 2. Judas bought the field in question. 3. Judas bought a field. 4. Judas threw down his money in the temple 5. Judas hanged himself. 6. Judas fell down and burst asunder. Obviously these cannot all be correct. The 4th and the 2nd/3rd statements are in conflict, as are the 1st, and the 2nd/3rd. >> "A:Christ said all these things. That different witnesses recall different pieces CONFIRMS the validity and shows it's not concocted." First of all, none of the writers of the Gospels were AT the crucifixion. They were all written LONG after Jesus' death. Second, even if you believe that the Apostles were there, there was not one of the Twelve named Mark, yet some of the details from the crucifixion like what Jesus was given to drink appear in Mark's gospel. Third, you would think that the writings of Jesus' DEATH - one of the MOST IMPORTANT stories in the Bible - would all be almost identical. We have a problem compiling all the stories. Was he given a drink or not? What was he given to drink? Did he actually drink it? What were his last words? All four of these are presented in the various gospels. Consider: 1. Jesus is given something to drink (Mark, Matthew, John). 2. Jesus is not given something to drink (Luke). 3. Jesus is given wine and myrrh (Mark). 4. Jesus is given vinegar (John). 5. Jesus is given vinegar and gall (Matthew). 6. Jesus drinks on the cross (John). 7. Jesus refuses to drink (Mark). 8. Jesus' last words are "It is finished" (John). 9. Jesus' last words are "My God, why have you forsaken me" and a loud cry (Mark, Matthew). 10. Jesus' last words are "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" (Luke). All of these cannot possibly be true. Clearly these cannot all be correct. >> "A:service/slavery" Exactly - God abhors oppression, yet commands slavery. This is inconsistent. >> "A: I know, strange isn't it?" Exactly - A man who would let his virginal daughters be raped and commits incest with them is righteous? This is inconsistent. >> "A:The Law is perfect BUT man is sinful so the law only exposes his sin" GOD wrote the covenant with man - NOT MAN. Thus, if there is something wrong with the covenant itself, the fault is with GOD not MAN. >> "A: All these attribute exist simultaneously within God, Just because that is hard for us to understand doesn't make it false." My opponent seems to be of the opinion that God can be (A & ~A). That's a logical contradiction - this is inconsistent. ****************************************** My opponent has offered no counterargument on the subject of Slavery and Lot's Righteousness. Thus, I hold he has conceded these points and the resolution is fulfilled. Furthermore, all his "refutations" of the existing points are quite laughable and lacking any modicum of logic. I await more of this nonsense. AFFIRMED.