There are no contradictions in the bible

-----Content----- o Contradictions o Source(s) ------------------- o Contradictions 1. Scientific Before I begin debate, I'd like to point out that the "godandscience. org" and the "theisticevolution. org" links are broken. Anyways, Pro begins refuting this point by saying that the Bible "never says the age of the earth. " I agree, it never EXPLICITLY spells out that the earth is 6,000 years old. But, if you put 1 and 1 together, you get 6000. Wait. .. No. If you put together 390 and 40 and 37 and 479 and 430 and 75 and 290 and 1656, THEN you get approximately 6000. But rest assured, 1 and 1 is still 2. Meanwhile, if you look to the first source my opponent provides and you analyze the graph carefully, you will see that even his source points to the fact that Genesis claims earth was created approximately 4000BC [1] <---- My opponent's source, captured on paint and edited to be more clear. 2. Historical r1. "We do have a traditional biblical chronology but this is man made hence this isn't a mistake made by the bible but by man. " I wrote a book one time, and I made a mistake in my book, but the book isn't wrong because I made the mistake so the book isn't wrong wait WHAT? r2. Your link is broken. r3. The biblical Ai is not to be where the biblical Ai really isn't, is basically what was said here. That makes no sense. The Hiroshima found in history textbooks isn't to be found where Hiroshima is in our history textbooks, but 13 miles due West. Does that make sense? Extend my argument. r4. My opponent proceeds to claim that carbon dating is not accurate, no warrant given. Extend my argument until reasoning is given. 3. Internal To sum it all up, it is for emphasis. Hmm. .. Plagiarism for emphasis. I presume that I'm not the only one having trouble buying this argument. Moreover, the example given about my opponent writing a biography and then citing Barack Obama's election doesn't apply because they are two different books, and he would quote the election in his book. A more pertinent example would be something like me writing a biography and then quoting a chapter of my biography in my biography for emphasis. For example, I explain how when I was young, I learned about basketball. Then, I joined a national Syrian basketball league and play for them. Then "I explain how when I was young, I learned about basketball. " That's what happens in the bible. Further, my opponent states it "does not add or take away from the fact that the event happened. " It's still an internal contradiction; for sacred writings to be plagiarized would have several implications. A) There was no divine inspiration, just a covering up of sources. B) There is potential that many stories were inspired by each other in the bible. C) The fact that a man copied another man's writing detracts from the credibility of the copier. 4. Logical My opponent copy-pasted his response; anyways, I find it hard that God himself would open the door for SATAN to do his work. It remains a contradiction there, and in that he says "translators of the NKJV BELIEVE. .. " This is only one group's explanation, but it is not universally agreed upon. There is no consensus upon the resolution of this contradiction; the burden of proof has shifted regarding this specific point. 5. Numerical Contained two thousand baths versus held three thousand baths, i. e. dry measure versus liquid measure. I'm not understanding this very well; if my opponent could explain it better I would appreciate it. I still contend that it is a contradiction, though, because my opponent did not refute my sources, BOTH OF WHICH use the word "held"; neither used "contained". The contradictions stand, the resolution is AFFIRMED o Source(s) [1] . http://i54.tinypic.com... ~~~Vote pro.