The Christian Bible contains contradictions.

Thanks to pro for his comments. --"However, Ecclesiastes 1:4 clearly states "the earth abideth." If something remains; to be a part not destroyed, taken or used up…"-- With all due respect to my opponent, he is taking too many liberties with definitions here. The Bible clearly says "abideth", not "remain". I did a search for abideth, on the link he provided, and the word isn't even listed in his dictionary. Clicking on the link shows that he was doing a search for the definition of "remain". A simple Google search will show that there are definitions for abideth. This may seem like a trivial point, but it isn't, as I'll explain. There are a number of ways that "abideth" is used, throughout the Bible, and a number of current definitions. The most popular seems to be: abideth [abideth (abide) ] v. stay; live, dwell; continue; tolerate, put up with; wait; comply, submit, obey, conform Pro is using Ecclesiastes 1:4, One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. In using the definition of remain, he is arguing that this verse has a particular "intent", but gives nothing to back up his translation. If he is going to argue intent, and claim a contradiction, then it needs to be shown that his translation, of this verse, is the same as the author intended. Once the verse is defended, the onus is on the claimant. Otherwise, I could pick another word, from the definition of abideth, and simply post this example: One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth "submits" (to God's will) for ever. Note: I am not arguing that my verse is a proper translation. I'm only showing an example of why pro's argument doesn't prove a contradiction. Without further support, both of our altered verses are equally valid, equally fit into the context of the passage, and equally fit the definition of "abideth". --"…by definition it cannot become new; having recently come into existence.…"-- Once again, rigid adherence to a chosen definition, without proof that it is the correct, or even best one. There are others, on his link, that fit perfectly with the idea of a new heaven and earth. Definition 4a works especially well with the verse about a new earth. New: 2. a : having been seen, used, or known for a short time b : being other than the former or old 3 : having been in a relationship or condition but a short time 4 a : beginning as the resumption or repetition of a previous act or thing b : made or become fresh c : relating to or being a new moon. 5 : different from one of the same category that has existed previously 6 : of dissimilar origin and usually of superior quality All of those definitions work with a new heaven and new earth, as written about, in the Bible. Rigid adherence to pro's chosen definition, and logic, means that we could never become a new person because we have to completely destroy the old one first. I could never buy a new stereo because it already existed before I bought it. Today we use figurative speech, all the time, in spite of being educated, and having sophisticated languages. It doesn't seem difficult to believe that thousands of years ago, uneducated people, who lived in tents, might use some figurative speech, in their writings. --"Additionally, let's take a closer look at the word "the." The - "used as a function word before a proper name to indicate the distinctive characteristics of a person or thing [4] The is used before earth as in "the earth" to show distinctive characteristics. Both Deuteronomy 4:40 and Ecclessiastes 1:4 are referring the "the earth;" not an earth. If the term "an earth" were used one could argue that both scriptures are referring to something called earth. However as this is not the case it is clear that both are referring to the Earth that is in existence."-- I doubt that the uneducated authors knew about those english rules when they wrote their books in Hebrew, centuries ago. To hold their works to the same standards we use today is unreasonable. --"If something has recently come into existence it cannot have remained; to be a part not destroyed or taken up."-- This entire paragraph is invalidated by the first sentence. Pro is simply combining his unsubstantiated choice of definitions, into one sentence, hoping that it will be accepted as fact. Even if all my other arguments are judged to be invalid, there is another issue that has to be considered, before deciding that this is a true contradiction. Pro used Deuteronomy, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, and Matthew to illustrate this alleged contradiction. Although a few select people had visions, of the end times, most people wouldn't have known what God had planned, until later. For many authors, of the Bible, their writings would have been complete before the final plan was revealed. So is it a contradiction for them to mention something, based on their knowledge at the time of the writing, and have it be wrong, when there was no way for them to know?? I don't think it qualifies as a true contradiction when they couldn't have known the end of the story. Pro has found two sets of verses, and interpreted them in a way, that he thinks, causes a contradiction. As justification for his interpretation, he uses today's definitions, rather than consider what the words might have meant, to the authors, or what their intent was. In addition, though there are other definitions that can apply, he chooses the definition that supports his position, and insists that that definition is the only possibility. I have used biblical references to refute pro's points, in several ways. Judging by this debate, the burden of proof, of a biblical contradiction, has not been met, by pro, so I ask a vote for con. Thanks to pro for a good debate.