The Bible is an Inconsistent Document

Responses: >> "The reason why hares once chewed the cud but no longer do" False - no member of order Lagomorpha has ever chewed its cud. In fact, I can't think of ANY rodents that do or ever have. >> "Obviously the exact point of deceit is, as always, classification." This makes me giggle. As though if we classified a hare as something else it would begin to chew its cud... >> "The Bible is NEVER wrong, it's the inerrant Word of God." False - the Bible holds that the value of Pi is 3. >> "Mules are the offspring of a Horse and a Donkey -The reason they can still mate is because they are ALL the SAME KIND." Mules and horses cannot mate. Neither can mules and donkeys. They are three distinct species. >> "REMEMBER the burden of proof is on YOU to prove the bible is an inconsistent document, I've easily refuted every argument." No - the burden is on YOU to show that the inconsistencies I've pointed out are not inconsistencies. You have refuted nothing - merely posted some quite humorous conjecture. >> "The Bible clearly states that the waters receded.. There's just a LOT more water that there used to be. How do you know what the world was like before (or just after) a flood you don't believe in?" You don't seem to understand - if the natural dam at Gibraltar burst, the Atlantic ocean would have poured in, flooding the middle east with a massive tidal wave and then receding into the Mediterranean basin. However, the Bible states that the entire earth flooded, and that it covered the highest mountains. This is quite clearly false. If the water receded, where did it recede TO??? Furthermore, the depth of the water (fifteen cubits) was not nearly enough to cover even medium-sized HILLS, much less the mountains the Bible states. The contradiction remains. >> "But you cannot know that there is NOT this distinction. Its seems perfectly clear to me." Fit for military service = capable of wielding a sword, does it not? Your "distinction" simply pretends that the census was conducted for two different reasons. If the reasons were different, why were not there two different numbers reported in the larger census?? Furthermore, the number of soldiers is RIDICULOUS - the US had 1.37 million active duty soldiers in 2001 - this purports that the Jews had almost 1.6 million soldiers (or at least 1.3) in BIBLICAL TIMES!!! That's almost certainly simply incorrect. >> "Genetic viability would only be a concern if there were no Sovereign God guiding His creation." I'll accept the 7+7 argument... but genetic viability? Even if God did guide creation, all animals of a certain type would all have the same DNA as the first two creatures, and they do not. Furthermore, my opponent did not address the fact that Noah sacrificed a lot of the animals after disembarking the ark. Did they just wait around to be burned?? >> "I think most people would concede that anything entering somethings mouth whether willfully or not could be described as 'eating'" You sometimes get dirt in your mouth... do you EAT dirt? Obviously not. God could have simply said that the serpent will be cursed by TASTING dirt all the days of his life... >> "More likely they became poisonous only after the fall.. some animals also became carnivores then." Then why are the Hebrew names for some animals derived from carnivorous meanings?? For example: Lion is derived from "in the sense of violence"; Cormorant from "to throw, cast, hurl, fling"; Hawk from "unclean bird of prey"; Owl from "to wrong, do violence to"; Eagle from "to lacerate." Obviously there were carnivores before the fall of man. Furthermore, the sin of man has NOTHING TO DO AT ALL with whether or not a plant is poisonous!!! >> "The Earth had a layer of water in the atmosphere which created an oxygen rich green house effect." ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!?! >> "Men's age span has receded the further away from God we've wandered" That's interesting, considering it was longer BEFORE organized religion came about... Educate yourself: (http://en.wikipedia.org...) >> "If Judas' money was used by the priests (they never would have 'owned' the money) then Judas, although dead, 'bought' the field." Did you not read Acts 1 or Matthew 27?? They are mutually exclusive. Either Judas bought the field, or the chief priests bought the field. >> "The ONLY way anyone could fall down and 'burst' would be if the corpse were allowed to bloat.. like hanging from a tree?" Or if they slashed their abdomen open.... "burst asunder" means that what was inside something gushed out - exactly like someone cutting open their abdomen. >> "As I said the differences PROVE the validity.. " Differences do not prove validity - they prove contradiction. >> "The Bible teaches that faith alone justifies, makes us righteous. Oh really?? Mat 16:27 - "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his WORKS." >> "God's perfect Law, mans sinful failure to keep it.. " Again - you do not understand at all. If God made a perfect covenant, he could just reinstate the SAME covenant - but he CHANGED it, showing that there was something wrong, something IMPERFECT with the first. >> "YOU do not judge God.. GOD JUDGES YOU. This makes me laugh - I can judge God all I want. In fact, I can judge God by his own law, which he routinely breaks throughout the old testament. >> "My opponent has offered NO evidence biblically that the bible is in anyway inconsistent.. I have refuted his quibbles easily." This is also laughable - Datcmoto has dropped half of the points I have made, and answered the rest of them with want basically amounts to "oh - trust in God." This is not any sort of meaningful argumentation. >> "NOTE the fact that my opponent relys more and more on emotional terms such as 'laughable' etc and his tone becomes more shrill with every desperate attempt to keep God's Word from the door of his heart." Again - I'm compelled to giggle. My opponent calls my points "desperate" while his own responses hinge on simply accepting God's power without any sort of intelligent inquiry. Who is really desperate? ****************************** My opponent has dropped many of the points I've made. He has not answered any of these inconsistencies with anything approaching a logical explanation. This debate is clear. AFFIRMED.