The Bible is an Inconsistent Document (II)

My opponent's underhanded attempt to restructure the resolution to his benefit continues. I would direct the reader to this debate (http://www.debate.org...) with the same opponent and resolution where he did not challenge the nature of the resolution till the last round. It is very clear that "with itself" is a clarification on logical consistency. Historic and Scientific consistency is necessarily related to the relevant conceptualizations. For example, it makes no sense to view the Bible as scientifically accurate when the principles of science weren't developed till 1500 years after the book was written. Also, the primitives who wrote the Bible did not have the necessary tools to make actual historical inquiries. For example, there is no reason to suppose the whole world flooded, when in reality, the Israelites only conceptualized what is currently the Middle East, North Africa, and the Caucuses as the entire "world." They would have had no way to even check if North America was under water... Thus, the resolution stands as it is, and as common understanding would have it. NOT as DAT wishes to twist it to see fit. ********************************************* Mat 28:19 - Act 2:38 Ignored by my opponent. Historical facts are obviously relevant. Joh 3:22 - Joh 4:2 You would think that there would be an explicit difference between being baptized by the SON OF GOD and being baptized by his followers. To suggest that the second verse is a mere clarification ignores the fact that the Gospel of John is a very spiritual text that would have hit this point very hard, as it would emphasize Jesus' divinity. Mar 16:16 - Mat 12:37 - Jam 2:17 These verses state that you need faith and works, just faith, and just words to be saved. But it also says you can be condemned on grounds of faith and words. However, in Acts 16, Paul simply states that faith is all that is required when he is directly asked. So... which is it? Act 26:23 - 1 Kin 17:22 The promise of eternal life in the OT is all well and good, but the first of those passages refers to Adam/Eve before the fall. The second is from Psalms, which undoubtedly references Genesis. The passage from Acts refers to a NONEXISTENT prophecy from the OT. The passage you reference is from the tree of life - AFTER the fall of man in Gen 3:1-19. It is FORBIDDEN to reach eternal life. So we have the contradiction of Jesus being the first to rise from the dead, as well as a missing prophecy... there are two problems here to solve. Jam 1:13 - Gen 22:1 How many times DAT?? James says God doesn't tempt. Genesis says God tempted Abraham. NOT Satan tempted. GOD tempted. Deu 24:16 - Deu 5:9 I'm still waiting on this one... my opponent doesn't seem to see a problem with God telling the same people that he will punish them for only their own sins, but then telling them that he'll punish their children for 4 generations as well... 2 Sam 24:9 - 1 Chr 21:5 You just told me that nobody could make a 430,000 mistake. Yet it appears in the Bible. Thank you for conceding this one. Ask yourself why on earth the same person would take two different censuses at the same time for the same purpose... The notion that it adds weight to YOUR argument is like saying, "The more inaccurate it is, the more consistent and true it is." ACT 1:18 - MAT 27:5-7 When the general reading of the text involves a facial contradiction, that contradiction must be resolved while retaining the meaning of the text, NOT changing the meaning. I'm still waiting... MAT 27:46,50 - LUK 23:46 - JOH 19:30 >> "The Gospels do contradict each other." Conceded. Apparently, DAT has abandoned his earlier position that the Bible is always true and infallible, stating that it was never presented to be "completely consistent." This is obviously grounds for concession. Lev 25:1, 17 - Gen 25:27 - Lev 25:44 The Bible also teaches that when you conquer a race, you can take the women to be your (unwilling) wives. Sounds like sexual slavery to me. That sounds pretty oppressive: "But the women... and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself" (Deu 20:14a). The Bible commands and permits all sorts of slavery. Abraham himself even prostitutes his wife as a military tactic in Genesis 20. All while God has a doctrine of non-oppressiveness... 2 Pet 2:7-8 - Gen 19:8 Only if my opinion of "just" is radically different than common conceptions... tell me - are the actions of Lot just in your eyes? Impregnating your own daughters? Offering them to be raped? Are those actions JUST? You have to defend their justness to save a contradiction here... a place where even angels fear to trod (HAR!!) Psa 19:7 - Heb 8:7-8 Yes, we've heard that passage. How could a law by God be "weak through the flesh" if God, who created it, is not OF the flesh? A perfect God could create a covenant that would account for all oddities of human behavior. I'm still waiting to hear on that point. Psa 103:8 - Exo 34:6 - Jer 13:14 - Lam 3:43b - 1 Sam 15:2 - 1 Sam 6:19 My opinion that looking in a box is a silly crime? Let's put it to the voters, as you are fond of saying. God, who is slow to anger and rich in kindness slaughters 50,070 people for looking in a box... what mercy... how slow to anger... Heb 13:20a - 2 The 3:16 - Rom 15:33 - Exo 15:3 - Psa 18:34 - Psa 144:1 "PEACE BY ALL MEANS ALWAYS." Do you not read anything I post? GE 6:4 - FACT Dropped by DAT. Gen 7:19 - FACT Dropped by DAT. GEN 7:2 - GEN 7:8 - GEN 7:9 - FACT Dropped by DAT. LEV 11:6 - FACT Wow DAT... I'm impressed by your ability to cut the actual relevant parts from your argument. From your own source: "Cecotropes are passed through the intestines and subsequently reingested for added nutrients in a process known as "caecotrophy", "caecophagy" "pseudorumination", "refection", or "coprophagy"" Coprophagous animals DO NOT CHEW THEIR CUD. It is SIMILAR. But then again, oil and water are similar, but one is not the other. The Wiki source even reads: "Coprophagy in Leporids and Other Mammalian Herbivores." Leviticus says "chews its cud" not "eats its poop." Without proper investigative tools, the Israelites would have no way to know that rabbit feces contains nutrients. Gen 3:14 - FACT Your "criteria" involves praying to know if the Bible is correct. EXTRAORDINARILY circular. Put it to the voters. Gen 1:29 - FACT God created the plants before the creation of man himself, much less fall of man. Interesting that all these plants would suddenly turn poisonous with no sort of word from God other than "cursed is the ground." The curse references the fact that Adam and Eve were to "eat bread, till thou return unto the ground" and eat the "herb of the field" instead "of every tree of the garden." Floxglove, nightshade, milk thistle... they have ALWAYS been poisonous. Gen 7:6 - FACT Yet again, if you'd bothered to read the source (http://en.wikipedia.org...) you would see that it covers Biblical times as well... giving the life span of the Bronze Age man at 18 years. The Bronze age would have ended in the Middle of the OT, but the next time period has an average lifespan of 40-ish years. 1 Kin 8:46 - 1 Joh 3:6 Original sin aside, there is absolutely no reason a non-Christian could remain sinless. The verses contradict each other. ***************************************************** Readers, you will see that throughout this debate, my opponent has attempted to weasel his way out of not only the resolution, but common readings of the text in question, as well as divert your attention from his lack of argument by simply referring to my arguments as "emotive." That's all well and good, but as you can see, he has woefully abandoned all reason in his conjecture. The debate is clear. AFFIRMED.