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

Thank you for challenging me to this debate. It certainly has been a fun debate and I have learned from it. I wish you the best of luck as we enter into the final rounds. Contradiction 1: Jesus’ Genealogies My opponent has not only contradicted himself, but has proved my whole point in this contradiction. My opponent has failed to answer the problem of the legal lineage. According to Jewish law, the mother’s lineage is totally irrelevant in selecting the legal lineage for the son. It is the male that selects the legal lineage: Numbers 1:18, “And on the first day of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who registered themselves by families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head.” (Emphasis mine) Until my opponent answers this question, the argument from genealogies does not stand. As a result, there is only one genealogy per child – the father’s genealogy. Contrary to what my opponent stated, it is absolutely impossible for Jesus to be a descendant of David twice over. Next, my opponent failed to respond to the fact that Luke makes Mary a descendant of Aaron – not David, by having her a cousin of Elizabeth who was a descendant of Aaron on both her father’s side (which would be Mary’s father) and Elizabeth’s mother. Therefore, Mary too is a descendant of Aaron. What about adoption? Does adoption solve the problem? My opponent stated, “But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son.” No, in fact it only adds to it. In Jewish law, adoption is irrelevant in determining legal genealogy. It is only by the biological father.. As Penina Taylor notes [1]: “If Jesus was not a product of Joseph's seed, then Messiah could not be of the Royal House of David, since in Judaism the mother gives one the "Jewish soul" and the father the "tribal lineage." If Jesus was the product of the seed of another being, then according to Jewish Halacha (law, literally “the way to walk”), Joseph could be a caretaker father, even if he could "adopt" Jesus, that would not give him tribal lineage, and so he could not be an heir to the throne of David. Unless Joseph is physically the father of Jesus, he (Jesus) cannot inherit the genealogical line of Joseph. Adoption, which is a legal procedure, does not allow one to inherit genealogical birthrights.” Finally, there are Scriptural verses to prove this: Numbers 36:7, “The hereditary property of the Israelites will thus not be transferred from one tribe to another, and each person among the Israelites will remain attached to the hereditary property of his father's tribe.” So, adoption does nothing to change the status of a child. For example, if a child from the tribe of Judah is adopted by a Cohen, he is not a Cohen, he is still from Judah and a descendant of David. Solomon’s lineage is forever promised: 1Chronicles 22:9-10 – (9) Behold a son will be born to you; he will be a man of peace, and I shall give him peace from all his enemies around about, for Solomon will be his name, and I shall give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. (10) He shall build a House in My Name, and he shall be to Me as a son, and I to him as a Father, and I shall prepare the throne of his kingdom forever. This proves beyond all doubt that the Messiah must be a descendant of Solomon. Emphasis is mine in that verse. My opponent has completely ignored those points. Conclusion: My opponent’s attempt at reconciling the verses have failed for several reasons: 1) Because Mary is a cousin of Elizabeth, who is of the tribe of Aaron, she too is from the tribe of Levi – not Judah; 2) Adoption does not change the status of a person’s lineage; 3) If the curse of Jeconiah is invalid by the adoption, then so is the legal right to the throne (you can’t have it both ways); 4) Mary’s lineage is invalid via Nathan and not Solomon. My contradiction still stands. Contradiction 2: The Last Supper and Crucifixion Dates My opponent dropped his explanation and has conceded to my rebuttal and admitted that his explanation failed. He then quoted Dr. Humphrey for an explanation which, unfortunately also, begs the question; namely, why would Matthew, Mark, and Luke use the pre-exilic calendar if it was no longer in use - especially because Matthew was writing to the Jews, it stands to reason that Matthew would use the official Jewish calendar at that time. If it were true that there were multiple calendars at Jesus’ time, the Jews were unified in selecting the date of the holiday. [2] Numbers 28:16-17 (Exodus 12:18) On the fourteenth day of the first month is the Lord's Passover. And on the fifteenth day of this month is a feast, seven days shall unleavened days be eaten. So, no matter what calendar you are using, the 14th day of the 1st month is Passover. Conclusion 1) The Jewish holiday date stays the same from year to year; 2) There is no evidence for multiple calendars – and my opponent’s quoting a scholar’s text is an appeal to authority. Nowhere in his argument does he prove that there are multiple calendars; and 3) It stands to reason that Matthew would be using the official Jewish calendar at the time of the event because he was writing to Jewish people. [1] http://countermissionary.org... [2] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...