Biblical Contradictions, Part II

To begin, I would like to point out again that the NIV is still a "Bible". Con did not say it could not be used (his link in R1 leads to the DDO home page, so even that can not be considered a strike against using the NIV). Therefore, contradictions within it are still Biblical contradictions by definition, no matter how "reliable" Con believes it to be. However, this is almost irrelevant, as I have and will continue to show that the contradictions remain no matter what source is consulted.Rebuttals1. Kings & Jeremiah1a. FigurativeCon's argument here seems to be that "lift up the head", in Jeremiah 52:31, is figurative. This has nothing to do with the point. That line of the verse reads, "...lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah and brought him out of prison." "Brought him out of prison" is the part of this verse that is my focus. Kings says that Jehoiachin was released from prison on the 27th day, while Jeremiah says that his captors "brought him out of prison" on the 25th day. That is the contradiction I have been discussing, it is not figurative, and it has nothing to do with whether "lifted up the head" is figurative.1b. Different Stages of a ProcessThe commentaries Con sources are not legitimate evidence. Neither source gives any reason beyond speculation to believe that the verses are referring to different stages of a process. The speculation of Bible-believing commentators is no more reliable than the speculation of my opponent. There is simply no evidence that the discrepancy between Kings and Jeremiah was meaningful or intentional.Jeremiah is estimated to have been written between 630 and 580 B.C.[1], while 1 Kings is estimated to have been written between 560 and 540 B.C.[2] Since the story of Jehoiachin is so similar in both books, it is conceivable that the author of 1 Kings got at least some of his information from Jeremiah, which was possibly in circulation. In this case, it seems likely that the discrepancy between the two books is attributable to an error by the author or a copyist error some time afterward.Whatever may be speculated about the discrepancy, Con has presented no evidence to suggest that the books are referring to different stages of the same process.2. Jesus' Last Words2a. Jesus' Cry in MatthewCon still gives no reason to believe that Jesus' last cry before his death in Matthew was the last words detailed in Luke or John, nor that it was words of any sort at all. No matter what Thayer's Lexicon says, Con tells us that Greek linguistic scholars define phóné as "sound, noise, voice, language, dialect." He then tells us that the NASB translates it 102 times as "voice". Does the sound of a voice necessarily imply words? No. Almost every type of cry uses the voice whether or not intelligible words are spoken.Con has shown no evidence that Jesus' last cry in Matthew is the final words recorded in Luke and John.2b. Jesus' Death TimelineThe timeline of Jesus' death that Con provides does nothing to prove that Jesus uttered the words recorded in all three books. It is conceivable that he did say all three things back-to-back, and that each writer failed to record some of his words, but it is also conceivable that he did not and that the writers just differ on what they believe his last words were. The latter conception is supported by the text, while the former is not. Taken at face value, the text shows a disagreement, while imagination and speculation must be employed to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus actually said all three things.3. Judas' FieldThe crux of Con's argument concerning Judas' purchase of the field seems to be in the distinction between "purchase" and "acquire". This doesn't really change anything. Con does not explain how Judas figuratively acquired the field using the "wages of iniquity" while the Pharisees literally purchased the field using the silver that Judas returned.When Judas killed himself in the field, did he "acquire" the field? No, not even figuratively. When the Pharisees bought the field, did Judas "acquire" the field? No, not even figuratively. The Pharisees acquired it. I can find no sensible way to infer a figurative acquisition of the field by Judas. A straightforward reading of the text, without adding nonexistent details and nonsensical metaphors, reveals a clear discrepancy between Acts and Matthew. Either Judas "acquired" the field using the money he earned betraying Jesus, and then killed himself there, or Judas returned the money out of guilt, killed himself, and then the Pharisees bought the field. Con has not given sufficient reason to believe that Acts is using figurative language.The evidence still shows that Acts and Matthew contradict each other.ConclusionI believe I have sufficiently shown that the three contradictions I presented are indeed contradictions. Con's arguments were speculatory at best, and were simply not supported by the text itself. When determining if contradictions exist, the Bible must be read as any other book, without bias. An unbiased reading does not allow the addition of details or conditions that the text itself does not even contextually contain.Thank you, Con, for a stimulating debate. Thank you, voters, for your time and consideration.----------------[1]http://www.gotquestions.org...[2]http://www.gotquestions.org...