Resolved: The Bible as we have it today contains no errors of consequence

Needless to say, I do not find your arguments to be satisfactory. I will explain why in this round. I. The Genealogies of Jesus I would like to respond in two parts. First, I would like to respond to the attempt to reconcile these verses via the lineages of Joseph (Matthew) and Mary (Luke). Secondly, I will refute the attempt at reconciling the consequence of this contradiction. A. Reconciling the Contradictions Reconciling the contradictions in the genealogies is not as easy as saying that Matthew is giving Joseph’s and Luke is giving Mary’s genealogy. This explanation is not without its problems. As D. A. Carson notes: "The theory that Luke really gives us the family tree of Mary rather than of Joseph is improbable. The theory with least difficulties is that Matthew gives the descendants of David down the royal line (i. e. who was heir to the throne at any given time), but Luke gives the particular line to which Joseph belonged. ” [1] Indeed, because Jews do not admit to transmission of genealogy by the mother, St. Jerome rightfully stated, “It is not the custom of the scriptures to count women in their genealogies. ” The reason is because it is the male that is the legal lineage of the child – once again, we see that Mary’s lineage is completely irrelevant. Finally, Mary was supposedly a relative of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36), whom he gave as a descendant of priestly family of Aaron (Luke 1:5). This makes Mary a member of that family – not a direct descendant of David and Solomon. B. What’s the Consequence? In addition to the contradiction, I pointed out several consequences that should be made apparent because of this contradiction: Whichever horn of the contradiction my opponent chooses to take, Jesus is not the Messiah. My opponent attempted to explain these difficulties. First, let’s unwrap the fact that the Messiah must be a descendant of Solomon. I will present several verses below that prove this point [2]: 1 Chronicles 29:1, “And David the king said to the entire congregation: Solomon my son, who alone God has chosen. .. ’” God also declared that He will not take the throne away from Solomon as He took it from Saul: 2 Samuel 7:14-15, “If he [Solomon] commits iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men, but My mercy shall not depart from him, as I took it from Saul . . . ” So yes, the Messiah must be a descendant from David – but it goes one step further as well with Solomon. My opponent dropped the consequence of Jesus having Jehoiachin in Matthew’s lineage. Please answer that problem in the next round. II. The Last Supper and Crucifixion Date Once again, I’ll break this rebuttal into two parts: I will refute my opponent’s explanation and then I will explain how this is a contradiction of consequence. The problem with the explanation is that the synoptics clearly tell us that this was the 14th day of Nisan: Mark 14:12-17 (Matthew 26:17-20; Luke 22:7-14), “And on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb, his disciples. .. went to the city. .. and they prepared the Passover. And when it was evening he came with the twelve and they were at the table eating. ” So, the synoptic gospels clearly state that: 1) This was on the first day of unleavened bread; and 2) This was when they sacrificed the Passover lamb. Emphasis in the verses are mine. John clearly states that this was before this event: John 13:1-2, “It was just before Passover feast. .. the evening meal was served. ” So, how is this of consequence? Remember how we defined what a consequence was. In our opening round, we defined it as a contradiction that poses an actual threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine. As such, it is unnecessary for there to be a command within the passage in order for it to be of consequence. In order to understand how this is a threat to the meaning of Christian doctrine, we need to understand the theology of what is going on within the passages. For John, Jesus was the new Paschal lamb (the Lamb of God). Therefore, it would make sense that Jesus would be crucified at the precise moment of the slaughter of the Passover lamb [3] (which John specifically states that he is). The synoptics’ theology, however, was to connect the Passover meal to the institution of the Eucharist. So the consequence is not necessarily one of command per se, rather it is a consequence of theology. I will respond to the final contradiction in the next round as I am out of space. In conclusion, I feel that the contradictions that I have presented still stand. [1] Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition (4th ed. ) (Lk 3:23–38). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill. , USA: Inter-Varsity Press. Quoted on . http://carm.org... [2] Sigal, G. (n. d. ). “Must the Messiah be a descendent of Solomon? ” . http://www.jewsforjudaism.org... [3] Tovia, S. (n. d. ). “Did the Passover Lamb Foreshadow the Crucifixion of Jesus? ” . http://www.outreachjudaism.org...;