The Bible Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

My hope is that this will be a lively and engaging debate that is enjoyable for all who read it. On with the debate! First, I would like to address my opponent's exhortation to remain in the text. I would like to clarify what this means. This mean that the contradictions and their resolutions should be inherant in the text. However, it is impossible to do any sort of hermeneutical interpretation without appealing to things outside the text (namely logic). If we wish to be hyper literal about this, my opponnet has violated this in his opening argument. However, since he himself has engaged in interpretation that is beyond the text, I shall assume that what he means is that all of our answers should be rooted in the text and should be supported not only by the text in question, but also by the rest of the corpus of scripture. Contradiction 1) My opponent seeks to show a contradiction between a passage that parabolically exclaims that God does not require Burnt offerings or sin offerings and a diactic passage that teaches that God does require these offerings for the forgiveness of sin. Whenever we approach a passage we must recognize the genre of writing we are working with, and then interpret it within the conventions of that genre. When we look at the Psalms, we must recognize that these are written in poetic form. They represent ancient poems and songs. Just as in our songs and poems, there is a high degree of parabollic and hyperbollic language used. Another phenomena that, although not unique, is prominent in Hebrew poetry is parallelism. In Hebrew parallelism there are several constructions that are possible. One such construction, that is present in this text, is where two different concepts are placed next to each other in order to make them synonymous (typically giving the second term the definition of the first). [A] In this passage we see "Sacrifice and offerings" is parallel with "Burnt Offierings and Sin Offerings" and "You have not delighted" is parallel to "You have not required. " So we must ask ourselves, what is this passage talking about. My opponent seeks to tell you that it is refering to the forgivness of sins (which is what Hebrews is talking about). The passage in Hebrews is refering to a foresic/legal transaction that happens in salvation. There is a debt of sin that must be paid for, and the sacrifice in question pays for it thereby clearing the debt. However, that is not what the passage in the Psalms is talking about. We see that in the Psalms that the Psalmist is seeking more than just the forgivness of his sins. He is seeking to "delight" the LORD. The answer to this contradiction is simple, they are talking about differint things. The Author of Hebrews is strictly speaking of how to achieve forensic/legal pardon from sins, while the Psalmist is talking about how to delight or please the LORD.2) My opponent seeks to draw a distinction between what he interprets as reincarnation in Job and the finality of death as represented in Hebrews. To be frank, my opponent's interpretation of Job 1:21 is ridiculous. No one who has studied this passage would argue that Job is refering to reincarnation. This is a poetic statement made by Job stating that he came into this world naked, and he would leave it naked. My opponent is going to have to provide some sort of evidence of any respectable scholar who believes this refers to reincarnation in order for this contradiction to be valid.3) My opponent seeks to show a contradiction between Hebrew Bible's declaration that one person cannot die for the sins of another, and the New Testament's assertion that Jesus died for our sins. There are three responses to this issue that I wish to addressA) In order to unravel this mystery we must understand what the passage in Deuteronomy (and Ezekiel) is talking about. The passage in Deuteronomy in question is placed in a section discussion various laws and punishments. These punishmets range from restitution (repaying for damages) all the way to capital punishment. This section is essentially a civic code for the fledgling nation of Israel as they are about to enter into the Promised Land and become a full nation. The passage in Ezekiel is refering to the same kind of civic regulations. This reveals the nature of the punishment that these works is mandating a person must serve themselves. What these passages is saying is that if a person commits a crime, the earthly punishment (in this case corporal) must be served by them. That is to day that a father could not simply offer up his son to die in his own place. This is not analogous to what is happening in the New Testament. The Christian Bible teaches that Christ died to purchase our salvation by satisfying the wrath of God. This is analogous to the OT Sacrificial system in which a Lamb or Goat is sacrificed to purchase forgiveness, albeit fleeting, for our sins. B) There is a difference linguistically between "for" in the OT passage and "for" in the New Testament passage. In the Deuteronomy passage we see earlier in the passage that they are using "for" in a resultative way. That is, "Each one shall be put to death as a result of his own sin. " In many Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cultures, a father could be put to death as a result of sins that their children committed. Similarly the son can be forced to bear punishment as a result of the father's sin. We see this in the Code of Hammurabi. Law 28 says "If a chieftain or a man be caught in the misfortune of a king, if his son is able to enter into possession, then the field and garden shall be given to him, he shall take over the fee of his father. [B] However, in the New Testament, the preposition "for" is the Greek "hyper/huper. " This word is not a resultative "for" it is more accurately translated as "on behalf of. " [C] The two words have different definitions and are refering to different things. C) The sense of Deuteronomy, seeing that it is responding and guarding against the kind of forced punishment transfer that was common in the ANE, is one where one person is forced to take on the punishment of another. However, this is not the situation that presents itself in the New Testament. In the New Testament we see Jesus willingly laying down his life on behalf of others. He is not doing so as a result of someone elses sin, he is doing so on behalf of another. He is choosing to give his life to make payment for the sins of those who would follow him. To summarize my point: The kind of unwilling punishment transfer that is being prohibited against in the Deuteronomy and Ezekiel passages is not analogous to the vicarious atonement death represented in the New Testament. This is attested to linguisticlly by showing a difference in the word "for" (As a Result of vs. on Behalf Of) as well as theologically and historically. Thank you to my opponent for this debate, I look forward to the next round. [A] . http://www.ancient-hebrew.org...[B] . http://public.wsu.edu...[C] . http://www.blueletterbible.org...