Resolved: The Bible as we have it today contains no errors of consequence

I will note that he has dropped one contradiction already. He promised, “I will respond to the final contradiction in the next round as I am out of space. .. ” Still no response. I. GenealogiesIn seeking to prove his point, my opponent has unfortunately dropped on his own sword. Let me explain. I will quote two of his statements side by side to show that while he is trying to prove a contradiction, he makes a contradiction. “. .. According to Jewish law, the mother’s lineage is totally irrelevant in selecting the legal lineage for the son. .. ”“. .. Mary a descendant of Aaron – not David, by having her a cousin of Elizabeth who was a descendant of Aaron on both her father’s side (which would be Mary’s father) and Elizabeth’s mother. Therefore, Mary too is a descendant of Aaron. .. ” (Emphasis mine. There is a non sequitur in that Mary is not the descendant of Aaron. Even if it were so, Aaron would not have been the sole ancestor. )I had to control myself not to burst out laughing when I spotted this. Besides which, I will address the actual arguments even though his arguments commit suicide. I have quoted in the previous round that Matthew makes Jesus the legal heir and Luke makes Jesus the biological heir. It appears that my opponent has ignored this. He answers slightly my answer to adoption, but as I will now show, it is a suicidal argument as well. a. AdoptionFirstly, by Con’s own admission, “. .. the mother gives one the "Jewish soul”. .. ” In other words, the mother gives the biological lineage, or “Jewishness. ” From this we can see already that Con’s earlier statements are blatantly false and contradictory. It means that I need not reply further. However, that will not prove my point sufficiently for the average reader, and I want to prove it. To do so, I will have to answer the header point of adoption. “Strictly speaking,. .. any descendent of David would be considered of the 'royal' family, because it was defined by the ancestor--not the current holder (or non-holder) of the throne. So, for example, in the case in 2 Sam 21, the children of Saul and his concubine Rizpah were of 'Saul and his bloody house', but--as children of a concubine--they would never be in the line of succession. ”[1] (Emphasis original)So it is clear from this that not only is your quote wrong on this point, it is also wrong on every other point as well. b. Mary’s tribeI will, even though I have clearly debunked all my opponent’s seeming contradiction, make a point about Mary’s tribe. “The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages. One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol. , III. 662:"Mary's father (Heli? ) had two daughters, Mary and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David. )"” (Ibid) (Emphasis original)"According to the later law, where there were no sons, daughters inherited, and with the express purpose of preventing a man’s name from being lost to his family (Nu. 27:4), but such daughters must marry only into the family of the tribe of their father (Nu. 36:6). In v. 22 it is stated that these conditions were fulfilled in the case of Eleazar and doubtless the verse was added to show why Eleazar was also counted among the fathers’ houses though he was known to have had no sons. — Curtis, E. L. , & Madsen, A. A. (1910). A critical and exegetical commentary on the books of Chronicles. Series title in part also at head of t. -p. (265). New York: C. Scribner's Sons. ” (Ibid) (Emphasis original)So it can be clearly seen from this, that in addition to the blatantly false claims you quoted, there is actually Biblical as well as historical support for the fact that Mary was of the seed of David. It is also very clear that the promise to Solomon was a conditional promise, as 1 Ch. 28:7 shows. “I will establish his kingdom forever if he continues strong in keeping my commandments and my rules, as he is today. ” Solomon did not continue strong. (Emphasis mine)It is also apparent that the Scriptures never refer to the return of “The house of Solomon” but “The House of David. ”Conclusion:Jesus is the descendent of David twice over as the evidence shows and as Con has actually helped my case very much. The Messiah need not be a descendant of Solomon, which Jesus was, according to the evidence. II. DatesI will only briefly respond to this as I am running out of space. Con has only affirmed my statements about different calendars. He has resorted to arguing with a source, which, however, does not even prove his point. As I will show, Con has only reaffirmed my statements. To see why, we will ask one question. The 14th day of the month of which calender? The Scriptures have no answer to this, so we must use other historical evidence. What does the evidence tell us? Well, the evidence is unanimously in favor of Humphrey’s solution. To dismiss it in spite of the evidence is not being skeptical at all, but thick-headed (No offence). Con has provided no explanation of how dates must be exilic in origin. He has only asserted that point. He has provided no counter to Humphrey's explanation of the dates. ConclusionCon dropped an argument of his own but innocently accuses me of changing my explanation. He provided no explanation for why he dropped the argument, while I provided explanation for my behaviour. The Jewish holidays are always the same for a certain calendar. Changing calendars would change dates. Con does not seem to notice this. In general conclusion, no contradiction has ever withstood the evidence I have presented. One was dropped, one was suicidal, and one sidetracked everything.1. . http://christianthinktank.com...All being said, I am thankful that this debate happened. If it had not, I would probably have not had gone much into historical details surrounding the Scriptures as I much prefer science.