Biblical Contradictions, Part II

Let me remind everyone that this debate is about proving or debunking Biblical contradictions. What counts as "Biblical"? Con states in R1, under "Sources", "Holy Bible(s) of the Christianity religion", then in R2 describes three types of text that count as "Bibles", including English translations. Therefore, if I can show that even one of these "Bibles" contains a contradiction, it is, by definition, a "Biblical" contradiction.Again, I do not have to prove that every Bible contains the same contradiction. A contradiction present in only one Bible is still a Biblical contradiction by definition.RebuttalsThe NIV's CredibilityI'm sorry, but if Con wanted to limit the versions of the Bible that could be consulted, he should have done so in R1. As it stands, he did not exclude the NIV, which is very much a "Bible" by Con's own definition. I believe it falls in Con's "ET" category. Without specifying beforehand that the NIV was not a legitimate source, Con accepted it as a legitimate Bible for the purposes of this debate. Therefore, if a contradiction appears in the NIV, it is a Biblical contradiction.However, even if Con had excluded the NIV, it would not help his case, as I will demonstrate below.Kings & JeremiahThis is a telling of exactly the same story by two different authors. All details are the same, including the word "nasa", with one exception: the day of the month (this is true in the NKJV as well as the NIV). Con says that this must mean that Jehoiachin was figuratively released on the 25th and then literally released on the 27th, and each author chose to only include one or the other in their account.First, Con misunderstands the word "figurative". Figurative language is metaphorical.[1] Beginning the proceedings and paperwork for releasing someone is not a metaphor for releasing them. It is not figurative. It is still quite literally a release, just a different stage of it. This does not completely invalidate Con's argument; I merely point this out to show that a figurative interpretation does not apply in this case.Second, and more damning for Con's argument, is the fact that there is no evidence that the authors were referring to different stages of a process. They both simply state that Jehoiachin was released from prison. One can imagine, as Con has, that Jeremiah is talking about the beginning of the process, while Kings is talking about the end, but such imagination is not supported by evidence. One can also imagine that little green Martians held the guards at gunpoint until they let Jehoiachin go, but such a detail is not supported in the text. All we have in the text is an almost identical telling of the same story, but with a discrepancy in days. There is no reason to believe that such a discrepancy was intentional, other than blind faith in the inerrancy of the Bible.Jesus' Final WordsMatthew does not state that Jesus "said something else" after "My God, my God." He states simply that Jesus "cried out." Again, imagination is required to believe that the cry was one of the phrases recorded by Luke or John, and not simply a cry of pain, fear, or whatever. Such an idea is not supported by anything Matthew says.However, such imagination can not even be used when we look at Luke and John. They do not record "My God, my God", nor any unintelligible cries coming before the wine. They each specifically record the words Jesus said right before expiring. Even if Con is correct, and "My God" came before the sour wine, while Luke's or John's statement came after, which was it? Luke says one thing, while John says another. There is no evidence to support that Jesus said both and the authors just failed to record both. Perhaps, since both books were not even written until 40+ years after Jesus' alleged death, the authors' memories had become fuzzy.Judas' FieldPlease remember that the NIV is still a Bible for the purposes of this debate. However, I have no problem with addressing Con's argument.Con would have us believe that Peter is somehow being poetic or figurative when he states that Judas bought the field in which he died. I honestly don't see how such an interpretation makes any sense.The "wages of iniquity" that Peter refers to are obviously the pieces of silver (wages) that Judas earned by betraying Jesus (iniquity). The same wages of iniquity that Judas returns to the Pharisees in Matthew, and which the Pharisees use to buy the field, contradicting Peters words in Acts. Con has given us no reason to believe that Peter was being figurative, and I can't conceive of a logical way to take those words figuratively.Whether or not we accept the NIV as a Bible in this debate (and we should), I have shown that Con has done nothing but imagine details and add to the text. None of Con's assumptions thus far seem to be supported by scripture.---------[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...