The Bible Contains No Genuine Contradictions of Consequence

I would also like to ask my opponent to wait until the last day of his posting period to post his argument. I will be traveling this weekend due to the 4th of July holiday and will not have access to a computer on Saturday, Sunday, and most of Monday. If he waits until Saturday then there shouldn't be a problem. On with the argument. RRRC1) My opponent actually makes my argument for me, and also proposes a new contradiction. However, he has not refuted my argument. We see from the parallel structure of the Psalm references that the sacrifice is not required {to delight the LORD}. This passage is not refering to the forgiveness of sin. The Psalmist is telling us that the LORD does not require a sacrifice in order for him to be delighted or pleased with us. We see the Psalmist confirm this in Psalm 51 when he writes "For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it // you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. // The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; // a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. " (Psalm 51:16-17). My opponent even validated this when he commented that a sacrifice without a correct mind, heart, and attitude was worthless. However, the author of Hebrews is not talking about how to please the LORD. He is talking about a forensic/legal sanctification and atonement. In regard to my opponent's comment that there is a new contradiction, he has not provided a verse that has said that the blood of bulls or goats takes away sin, so he has not presented a new contradiction. Until he does, there has not been a contradiction presented. RRRC2) Hebrew operates on a system of verbal infleciton called a Binyan system. This is similar in concept, although not identical, to our concept of verbal voice. If a verb appears in the Qal stem, it is a slightly different connotation than if it appears in the Polel. The verb in question appears in the Qal, so we are limited to the definition listed under the Qal section of the definition. None of these verbs necessitate or even imply reincarnation, and given that my opponent has noted that this teaching does not appear in the written Torah, it is not a contradiction inherant in the text. As such, I am considering this contradiction resolved unless my opponent has more to add in his final round. RRRC3) Simply put, when the translators say "For" in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, what the word means is "as a result of. " It was common, as seen in Hammurabi's Code, for children or parents to be punished because of the transgressions of the other. It was a form of "Guilty by Association. " This kind of transfered punishment is what Deuteronomy and Ezekiel is forbidding. However, in the New Testament, the word For means "On Behalf Of" and represents a voluntary acceptance of death on the behalf (not necessarily in the place of or as a result of) the other person. The kind of substitution that Deuteronomy forbids is not the same kind of substitution that takes place on the Cross. I would like to remind my opponent that Round 3 is his last chance to rebuttal my arguments. Per the terms of the debate, my opponent may only respond to my arguments and cannot present new contradictions in this round. I will make an exception if he wishes to pursue the "Blood of Bulls and Goats cannot take away sin" that he alluded to but did not present in round 2. Thank you for reading, I look forward to your responses.