The Bible Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

I will make this brief and conclude this debate. I would like to thank my opponent for the time he has put into this debate, and look forward to future debates with him. I would also like to remind him that he is not allowed to post rebuttals or new contentions in round four, per the original stipulations of the debate. 1) My opponent has dropped this contention. 2) My opponent is mistakingly conflating the terms "Forgive" and "Remove (or Take Away). " I shall expound on this further. 3) My opponent has dropped this contention. 4) My opponent has poorly supported his argument, and does not respond adequately to mine. I shall expound on this further. Response to Contention 2) My opponent cites a passage hat declares that God forgives sin when animals are sacrificed. He then uses this passage to indicate a discrepancy with a later verse that states that God does not remove sin because of the blood of bulls and goats. However, in the Bible we see a distinction between forgiving sins, and removing sins. We have a similar distinction in our concept of forgiveness, in at we see a difference between "Forgive and forget" and simply "Forgive. " We also see this in our criminal justice system in that a judge has the ability to have someone simply pay a fine and have the punishment remain on their record, or to have them pay the fine and then remove the transgression from their record. The sacrifices in the Old Testament were like the first situation, where a law-breaker pays a fine but the record of wrong remains. They may not suffer the penalties of that transgression, but the fact that the transgression is still on their record. This is what the author of Hebrews is saying does not happen with the blood of bulls. It does not clear the record, it simply pays the fine. However, the author of Hebrews makes allusions to Isaiah's declaration that Messiah will wash us white as snow, and not only will he pay our fine (to bring about forgiveness) but he will also remove the record of wrong doing. Paul also attests to this in 1st Corinthians 11 when he says "Love keeps no record of wrong doing. " There is no contradiction here because Hebrews is not talking about JUST the forgiveness of sins, but also the expunging of the record, while the Levitical law is only referencing the forgiveness of sins. Response to Contention 4) My opponent has made two mistakes. The first mistake is that his explanation has no support whatsoever, he simply asserts that God will not allow this because of his justice, alludes to a situation in which Mose proposes a similar substitution, and then asserts that the situations are parallel. .. however he has not proven this in any way. His second mistake is that he has not understood my argument. M argument is that the type of substitutionary death described in Deuteronomy is not analogous to the substitutionary death on the Cross. Deuteronomy was written into a culture that commonly enforced punishments involuntarily onto those who did not commit the crime. The prohibition was there to do two things: A) Ensure that punishment was enforced, and B) Ensure that someone was not made to serve someone else's punishment involuntarily (As it was common to do in surrounding cultures). However, Christ's sacrifice on the cross does not fit this description. He was not simply being punished instead of someone else. He was voluntarily laying down his life to purchase the right to forgive humanity. He was not being forced to take on our punishment (although he did take on our punishment), he was willingly doing so. Now, while someone may argue that this is fundamentally unjust, it is not contradictory to the Biblical prohibition of imposed vicarious punishment found in Deuteronomy. To summarize 1) My opponent has dropped this contention, and therefore the contradiction does not stand. 2) I have shown that the references to "forgiving sins" via animal sacrifice do not represent the same thing that Hebrews is referring to when it says that the blood of bulls and goats does not "remove" sins. Since my opponent has not provided any citations that show that said sacrifices remove sin in the way that Hebrews discusses, there is no contradiction present. 3) My opponent has dropped this contention, and therefore the contradiction does not stand. 4) I have demonstrated that the prohibition against vicarious punishment in Deuteronomy is a reaction to imposed substitution in the surrounding cultures. Since the substitution undergone in the crucifixion is voluntary and therefore not imposed, it does not fall under the prohibitions seen in Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, and other places in the Hebrew Bible. As my readers can see, I have fulfilled my burden of proof to demonstrate that the contradictions presented by my opponent either A) Do not represent a contradiction of consequence, or B) are resolvable when proper exegetical and hermeneutic analysis is applied. My opponent has not, however, provided a single contradiction of consequence that cannot be resolved. He has therefore not fulfilled his burden of proof in this debate.