The Bible is an Inconsistent Document (II)

The charge that I have intentionally misunderstood the parameters of this debate for my own gain is one I take seriously. "The proposition on offer is that the Bible is an inconsistent document, historically, scientifically, and logically (with itself). " To my mind, that (with itself) applies to all of the previous words within the sentence. If not.. Whose version of history would we choose to compare it with? Which epoch of scientific inquiry would we judge it by? There would only have to one single dissenting theory about anything anywhere for the Bible to be inconsistent within this ludicrous framework. My opponent's very next line is: " Here are collections of verses that represent a biblical contradiction:" ************************************************************************************* Mat 28:19 - Act 2:38 At least now you are beginning to debate. You have introduced a new element to your argument: The Trinitarian doctrines acceptance at Nicea. Unfortunately this does not further your cause as you have now strayed into comparing the Bible with a history and not with itself. ************************************************************************************* Joh 3:22 - Joh 4:2 The disciples baptized at Christ's behest. There is then a clarification to show He did not physically do so. Another example: "Hitler invaded Poland." Clarification: "Hitler sent his army into Poland, He did not enter the country personally until they had surrendered." ************************************************************************************* Mar 16:16 - Mat 12:37 It does not explicitly states that 'This is the only way to be saved' so no inconsistency. ************************************************************************************* Act 26:23 - 1 Kin 17:22 Ah, now you are comparing the Bible with itself. However, the Bible certainly does teach of eternal life in the old Testament. Here are some scripture samples: Genesis 3:22ï¿½(New King James Version) 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" Psalm 16:11 You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand. ************************************************************************************* Jam 1:13 - Gen 22:1 It is a question of motive: Satan wants us to succumb to temptation, God wants us to resist temptation. One of them is benevolent and the other malevolent. These scriptures simply reveal this distinction. ************************************************************************************ Deu 24:16 - Deu 5:9 Again, you are simply confusing your personal view that 'God is inconsistent' with the debate on whether the Bible is inconsistent. ************************************************************************************* 2 Sam 24:9 - 1 Chr 21:5 The size of the difference in numbers (430,000) adds weight to my proposition (that it is a different count) as no one could make a mistake that big. **************************************************************************** ACT 1:18 - MAT 27:5-7 It makes as much sense to 'deliberately read one to accord with the other' as it does to read one in contradiction with the other. **************************************************************************** MAT 27:46,50 - LUK 23:46 - JOH 19:30 *Voters please note that my opponent has begun his usual use of emotives: 'idiot', 'laughable' etc.. These verses easily represent the strongest case for Biblical inconsistency. The Gospels do contradict each other. Yes, you heard me right.. BUT, before my opponent claims his pallid little victory, let me explain exactly why that does NOT make the Bible itself inconsistent. If the Bible presented the four Gospels as completely consistent with one another then they would be little more than exact replicas or carbon copies. If that was the case then why use four at all? Why not just pick (any) one? Because a very large part of Gods plan of salvation is to give us the dignity of claiming a part of that salvation for ourselves. So the four Gospels are presented in a 'warts and all' fashion that actually adds weight to their authenticity in that if they were manufactured, the hoaxers would never allow so many glaring inconsistencies. They would have 'tidied it up'. **************************************************************************** Lev 25:1, 17 - Gen 25:27 - Lev 25:44 *Emotive: 'ramblings' Having a slave does not mean you shall oppress him. In fact the Bible explicitly teaches not to oppress ones slaves: Ephesians 6:9ï¿½(New King James Version) 9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. ************************************************************************************* 2 Pet 2:7-8 - Gen 19:8 You are simply comparing that which the Bible states and your own opinion. ************************************************************************************* Psa 19:7 - Heb 8:7-8 This is now the second time I have posted this scripture. Romans 8:3 (New King James Version) 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, ******************************************************************************** Psa 103:8 - Exo 34:6 - Jer 13:14 - Lam 3:43b - 1 Sam 15:2 - 1 Sam 6:19 Again, you are simply stating your personal opinion or judgment. You are not comparing the Bible with itself. ******************************************************************************** Heb 13:20a - 2 The 3:16 - Rom 15:33 - Exo 15:3 - Psa 18:34 - Psa 144:1 If God is a God of peace and war then it is in no way inconsistent for the Bible to describe him as either on separate occasions. ******************************************************************************** GE 6:4 - FACT But we are not debating whether the Bible is inconsistent with history but whether it is historically inconsistent. (with itself) ************************************************************************************* Gen 7:19 - FACT Emotive: 'sputterings' Supposed inconsistency with History/Opinion not within the Bible. ************************************************************************************* GEN 7:2 - GEN 7:8 - GEN 7:9 - FACT Supposed inconsistency with History/Opinion not within the Bible. ******************************************************************************** LEV 11:6 - FACT Again, I have already posted this link, I reproduce the relevant part: from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org... " The cecotrope then passes through the colon, the anus, and is consumed by the animal. The process occurs 4 to 8 hours after eating. This type of reingestion to obtain more nutrients is SIMILAR TO THE CHEWING OF CUD IN CATTLE." ******************************************************************************** Gen 3:14-fact The criteria is simply 'discernment'. ************************************************************************************* Gen 1:29-fact *GEN 317- "Thou shalt not eat of it: CURSED IS THE GROUND FOR THY SAKE" ************************************************************************************* Gen 7:6-fact There can be NO 'before Biblical times' in a discussion of supposed Biblical inconsistency. ************************************************************************************* 1 Kin 8:46 (PASTED FROM ROUND 1) 1 Joh 3:6 >As every man has to choose to abide in Christ it follows that he has at some point sinned. 1John3:6 means no one continues to sin.