The Bible is an Inconsistent Document (II)

Let us correct a few things first... >> ""The proposition on offer is that the Bible is an inconsistent document, historically, scientifically, and logically (with itself). " NOT with 'facts' NOT with your opinion. With ITSELF." I love that you later deliberately misunderstand the resolution. There are three types on inconsistencies: first, with history, second, with scientific fact, and third, with other parts of the Bible. Surely you can understand something as simple as that. >> "My opponent relies on a 'superior attitude' rather than valid responses or reasoned debate. (when he understands the debate that is.)" This makes me giggle, considering my opponent considers "magic" to be a valid response in reasoned debate. It is clear which of us understands the subject matter and which does not. *********************************************************************** Mat 28:19 - Act 2:38 Baptize in Jesus' name only or in the name of the whole blessed trinity? Furthermore, the trinitarian concept wasn't established until the Council of Nicea during the reign on Constantine. At the time the gospels were authored, there was no concept of the trinity at all. The verses are still in conflict, even if the "father, son, and holy ghost" references were added later. Joh 3:22 - Joh 4:2 It is no clarification to state the opposite. One verse explicitly states that Jesus baptized people. The other states that he did not baptize anyone. How do you resolve the two notions that Jesus went to Judea and baptized people, but Jesus "baptized not" ?? Obviously, they are irreconcilable. Mar 16:16 - Mat 12:37 Considering the Bible outlines nearly 30 different ways to be saved, there are multitudes of contradictions on this one issue. However, you can easily see the inconsistency when you consider James 2:17 - "Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." This states the faith AND works are necessary to be saved, and if my "debate by omission" is as invalid as you say, you must apply the same concept here, and find both verses woefully lacking in consistency with other parts of the Bible. Act 26:23 - 1 Kin 17:22 The concept of eternal life was unheard of until Jesus began preaching it. The passage in Acts 26 is a reference to a prophecy: "Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: The Christ... should be the first that should rise from the dead." Curiously, this passage is not found in the OT, which shows ANOTHER contradiction, and also clarifies that it means ordinary life, not eternal life. Jam 1:13 - Gen 22:1 Apparently you are confused by this contradiction. Yes indeed - I am happy to let the voters decide if this represents an inconsistency: God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. God did tempt Abraham. Inconsistent? Of course!! Egregiously so!! Deu 24:16 - Deu 5:9 Oh so now this is for some Jews and not others?? Considering ALL people are children of God and supposedly bound by his law, it doesn't really matter anyway. The inconsistency is not in which people God punishes, but the method by which he does so. The verses are not set up in a way that makes a distinction between law-abiding and sinful Jews. It is a perfect example of God's injustice and his lack of consistency. 2 Sam 24:9 - 1 Chr 21:5 Regardless of how I present the verses, the fact remains that somehow, the two census numbers for the same event are different by some 430,000 people. Kings shows that the Jews are bad at math (with their value of pi), but 430,000 when counting?? Really?? ACT 1:18 - MAT 27:5-7 I will admit that the case of Judas is somewhat nebulous, but in reading the verses, it makes no sense to deliberately read one to accord with the other. One verse gives the reader the impression that Judas hanged himself; the other, that he committed Hari Kari. MAT 27:46,50 - LUK 23:46 - JOH 19:30 What kind of idiot would leave the CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS, one of the most important events in the Bible without waiting to see if he had more to say? Your explanation is laughable and makes absolutely no sense at all. Lev 25:1, 17 - Gen 25:27 - Lev 25:44 Your ramblings have nothing at all to do with slavery. Here we have three statements: 1) You shall not oppress one another. 2) You can lord over other nations. 3) You shall have slaves. They make sense if you consider "one another" to mean only Jews, but the fact that the Bible continuously makes reference to your neighbor as not necessarily a Jew (story of the Good Samaritan), this verse would have the be deliberately misinterpreted for it to make any sense. 2 Pet 2:7-8 - Gen 19:8 True - there was no gang raping. The angels pulled Lot inside and killed everyone outside the house. Then Lot's family escaped to the mountains, where his virginal daughters got him drunk, had sex with him, and conceived children (Gen 19). By your logic, since God allowed this to happen, murder, drunkenness, incest, pre-marital sex, and date-rape are perfectly acceptable. Lot was by no means "just." Psa 19:7 - Heb 8:7-8 Pray tell WHERE in the Bible it states that the law failed because of imperfect men? Unless you can provide this point, the inconsistency stands. Psa 103:8 - Exo 34:6 - Jer 13:14 - Lam 3:43b - 1 Sam 15:2 - 1 Sam 6:19 I find it hard to believe that an entity that is "plenteous in mercy" would kill 50,070 people in a "great slaughter" because they looked into the ark of the lord.... which happens to be the chest where the tablets with the 10 Commandments were kept. So God killed a LOT of people for looking in a box. What kind of mercy is that??? Heb 13:20a - 2 The 3:16 - Rom 15:33 - Exo 15:3 - Psa 18:34 - Psa 144:1 The verses above deliver contradictory representations of the same deity. They are of course inconsistent. What kind of consistency is there in saying: God is a god of peace and a God of war? Unless he is both... which goes against "Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means." GE 6:4 - FACT My opinion and historical record are two different things. This one contradicts history. Gen 7:19 - FACT Your sputterings don't actually address this... I'm still waiting. GEN 7:2 - GEN 7:8 - GEN 7:9 - FACT Again... I'm waiting. Do the math... it wouldn't fit, not all the animals could get there, they wouldn't survive the offerings at the end.... LEV 11:6 - FACT What, pray tell, do you expel anally that ISN'T poop?!? Coprophagous animals eat their poo. This is NOT chewing cud. GEN 3:14 - FACT Come now... you have to have some sort of criteria for which things are literal and which are figurative... GEN 1:29 - FACT You have yet to provide a verse... the one you DID provide states, "thou shalt eat the herb of the field," which simply reinforces the point... there are poisonous herbs in the field... they may not have been in EDEN, but they're still there. Gen 7:6 - FACT My opponent's confusion about "before Biblical times" simply underscores his radical misunderstanding of reality. He has not actually addressed the point... ************************************************************************* My opponent also dropped argumentation on these verses: 1 Kin 8:46 - "There is no man that sinneth not. ' 1 Joh 3:6 - "Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not. " I thank him... even one inconsistency fulfills the resolution, and he has conceded this one. I can hardly blame him... as this is one of the most obvious contradictions in the whole Bible... AFFIRMED