The Bible Contains Inaccuracies

I thank CON for his third round arguments. Before getting to the arguments proper, I would like to thank CON for accepting this debate; I have thoroughly enjoyed it, and I hope CON has as well. The Six Main Arguments 1) Joseph’s Father Regarding CON’s point that Jechonias was not childless: the scripture says, “Write ye this man childless,” as in he should be considered childless. It goes on to say, “…no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah” [1]. This scripture clearly shows that no one from the line of Jechonias will inherit David’s throne [2][3][4][5]. Another common way Christians get around this difficulty is by claiming that since Jesus is not Joseph's biological child, the curse does not transfer to him, but since he is Joseph's adopted son, he can inherit the birthright. However, unless CON wants to bear the burden to demonstrate the historicity of the virgin birth, we can disregard that argument. Therefore, Jesus cannot fulfill the prophesy of Jeremiah, so if the genealogy in Luke is Mary’s, the bible is inaccurate in it’s prophesy. If it is Joseph’s genealogy, the bible is inaccurate by having two conflicting genealogies. My point stands. 2) Earthly Languages Here, instead of relying on a possible inaccuracy that may boil down to opinion, I showed how the story of the Tower of Babel is historically inaccurate. Instead of arguing against that point, CON has doubled down on his different opinion regarding my arguments in Round 2. However, as clearly stated in Round 1, “I reserve the right to add new examples as I deem it necessary.” CON has not addressed my argument about the historical inaccuracy of the Tower of Babel story. My point stands. 3) Moses’ Father-In-Law Here, I have argued that the bible is inaccurate in that it gives two different fathers-in-law for Moses. CON argues that one of them is a mistranslation. I will address translations in the final section of this round. Here, I just want to reiterated that CON requested we use the King James Version for this debate because it is a “direct translation” [6]. Therefore, in my opinion, any translation inaccuracies are valid inaccuracies. My point stands. 4) Punishment for Parent’s Sins Here, I have shown that the bible is inaccurate by claiming that children will be held responsible for their parents’ sins, and in another point saying that children will not be held responsible. CON simply ignores the contradiction and argues for a particular interpretation of the bible overall. He never really addresses the point I made in Round 3 that Exodus 34:7 clearly states that children will be held responsible for their parent’s sins. This scripture is inaccurate according to the text in Ezekiel. One does not complement or explain the other; they are saying two different things. Therefore, one or the other must be inaccurate. My point stands. 5) When Did Baasha Die? I don’t think CON understood my point. We aren’t talking about dates; we are talking about a fixed point in time. If Asa started his rule in year 1 of one dating system and year 101 in another, an event that took place in the 26th year of his rule took place in year 26 or year 126 respectively. However, if a man died in year 10 (year 110), it is the 10th year of Asa’s reign, no matter how you date it. My point stands. 6)Good Works It seems that CON is trying to conflate two different things: what we are told to do, and why we are told to do it. For this debate, I am not concerned with why we are given a particular instruction; I am concerned with the instruction itself. As I explained in the previous round, Matthew 5 clearly says to perform good works publicly [7], while Matthew 6 is very clear that we should perform them in secret [8]. My point stands. A New Argument 7)David’s Chief He killed 800 (2 Samuel 23:8) He killed 300 (1 Chronicles 11:11) A few other translations: American Standard Version 2 Samuel 23:8http://tinyurl.com... 1 Chronicles 11:11http://tinyurl.com... Complete Jewish Bible 2 Samuel 23:8http://tinyurl.com... 1 Chronicles 11:11http://tinyurl.com... English Standard Version 2 Samuel 23:8http://tinyurl.com... 1 Chronicles 11:11http://tinyurl.com... Geneva Bible 2 Samuel 23:8http://tinyurl.com... 1 Chronicles http://tinyurl.com... Young’s Literal Translation 2 Samuel 23:8http://tinyurl.com... 1 Chronicles 11:11http://tinyurl.com... New World Translation 2 Samuel 23:8http://tinyurl.com... 1 Chronicles 11:11http://tinyurl.com... These accounts are talking about David’s rise to power. The passage in 2 Samuel claims David’s Chief Captain killed 800 men at one time, while the analogous passage in 1 Chronicles puts the number at 300. Now, another obvious problem with the passages is that the man has a different name in each passage. The discrepancy is usually blamed on scribal error [9][10][11], another problem for the bible. Names aside, it is clear that the different passages record a different kill total for David’s Chief Captain; at least one of the figures must be inaccurate. Errors and Concluding Thoughts It seems almost any discussion of the inerrancy (or lack thereof) of the bible eventually boils down to a discussion of errors in copying and translating. If we had an original copy of the bible sitting in a museum vault somewhere, we could reference it for any copy or translation errors, and determine the real meaning. However, this is not the case. Every manuscript we have for the bible is a copy, and these were generally copies made more than a millennium after the original was written [12]. Since any of these non-original manuscripts can contain copy errors, or even translation errors, we cannot rely on them to show us 100% of what was written in the original texts. Another option is to seek the opinions of those who study the bible, but biblical experts often disagree on translations [13][14] and meanings [15][16]. In fact, these disagreements have often been the reason for splits in the church [17], splits that have resulted in tens of thousands of denominations within Christianity [18]. With that in mind, I will make my final case. I began with the claim that the bible contains at least five inaccuracies, a claim for which I bear the burden to demonstrate. I have given seven examples of inaccuracies in the version of the bible that CON suggested we use. While I feel I have made my case clearly, some of my arguments may be a matter of interpretation, especially those regarding translation. In these cases, I have shown what the bible actually says, and I have backed up that particular point with other sources. Since we have no official bible to reference for the real meaning, much is a matter of opinion. Since I have shown that these verses are in error in CON’s preferred version of the bible (in some cases other versions as well), CON must bear some burden to show why we must interpret these verses differently. For instance, regarding argument 3, CON has shown that the wordcanbe translated as brother-in-law, but he has not demonstratedwhyit should be translated in such a way. Keeping in mind that it would be circular reasoning [19], a logical fallacy, to use the reason that it would cause a discrepancy, I reaffirm my original claim for which I feel I have met my burden;The Christian Bible contains at least five inaccuracies. [1]http://tinyurl.com... [2]http://tinyurl.com... [3]http://tinyurl.com... [4]http://tinyurl.com... [5]http://tinyurl.com... [6] See Comments [7]http://tinyurl.com... [8]http://tinyurl.com... [9]http://tinyurl.com... [10]http://tinyurl.com... [11]http://tinyurl.com... [12]http://tinyurl.com... [13]http://tinyurl.com... [14]http://tinyurl.com... [15]http://tinyurl.com... [16]http://tinyurl.com... [17]http://tinyurl.com... [18]http://tinyurl.com... [19]http://tinyurl.com...