The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

They have given me lots to think about, and he has kept me on my toes. Before my final argument I would like to summarize. My opponent has identified five contradictions that he attacked. He labeled them A-EA) Conceded in Round 2B) Continued belowC) Conceded in Round 2D) Continued belowE) Conceded in Round 3Continued ArgumentsB) My opponent has identified something that I did not anticipate. I will have to more clearly articulate what I mean in future debates, regardless I don't believe that his attack, although innovative, holds water. My rules do not say that we cannot refer to the original language, it only states that when referencing translations that we only use the ESV. The original Greek is not a translation. The resolution is not "The New Testament in the ESV contains no genuine contradictions of consequence" it is "The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence. " My opponent is not able to defeat the force of my argument, so he is resulting to attempting to undermine my argument by placing it outside of the rules. As I said before, this is innovative and not out of line, he has not shown that my argument exists outside of the boundaries of this debate. D) My opponent claims that since Mark 16:14-19 is in the text that we have, that I must address it. I did address it, I gave a full explanantion of the fact that the text contains no temporal indicators that show timespan between events. Although I referenced the Greek text to explain this, I will now point out that the English text also does not contain any temporal indicators. It simply gives us a sequence of events. Jesus said something, time passed,Jesus was taken up into Heaven. There is nothing inherant in the text that gives us an idea of how much time passed. .. when reading the text it could be minutes and it could be weeks. We see from Acts 1:9-12 that it was at least 40 days. The timeline I proposed in my Round 3 argument shows that the various accounts are perfectly harmonious UNLESS we read into the text something that it does not itself supply. .. namely the word "Immediately" which is not present in either the Greek or English Text. For reference, I am copying the sequence into this argument for the ease of the reader. -Jesus appears to the 11 while they are eating and rebukes them (Mark 16:14)-Jesus appears to many people beyond the 11 Apostles for the next 40 days (We see him appearing to people beyond the Apostles in the Gospel of Luke)-After 40 days, Jesus meets with the 11 Apostles and leads them out of Jerusalem and to Mount Olivet (Matthew 28 and Acts) on which the Village of Bethany sits (Luke 24)-He shared one last message with them (Matthew and Acts both record a final message on Mt Olivet and likely reflect different parts of a whole sermon)-He was then taken up from their into heaven (Mark 6:19 and Luke 24:50-51)To conclude:My opponent has sought to undermine my arguments by attempting to place them outside of the boundaries set in round one. He quotes "Con’s burden of proof is to provide adequate biblical citations so that I may find the passages he is referencing. In addition, please use the ESV as the translation as it is both accurate and readable, and using only one translation prevents us from slipping into confusion over variant readings in different translations. ” and then clamis that I have used another translation to make my argument. However, I have not. The Greek text is not a translation. Furthermore, we are not debating (nor were we ever) the consistency of the ESV. If this was actually a concern that my opponent had, he should have brought it up in round 2 when I referenced the Greek. Rather, this is a response to the recognition that my argument has defeated his. In the end, Con presented five contradictions. He himself has acknowledged that I have overcome 3 of them, and the remaining contradictions are only defensible if ignoring the language the Bible was written in. It is clear that I have fulfilled my burden of proof to "reasonably explain any apparent contradictions that Con identifies" and therefore deserve your vote.