The Bible Contains Inaccuracies

Also, I would beg the forgiveness of the PRO, as I have responded late in this round. (I"ve been very busy) Secondly, truth regardless of how it translates into language is truth none the less. If we are going to continue we must agree on this point. 1) Mathew 1, "This is the genealogy[a] of Jesus the Messiah[b] the son of David, the son of Abraham: 2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 4 Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah"s wife, 7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9 Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon. 12 After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud, Abihud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Elihud, 15 Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. " I don"t know about you, but it sure seems like Jesus is the direct heir to the throne. My opponent made an argument however, regarding a verse in Jeremiah, that the line of Joseph was cursed. Jeremiah 22:30 "Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah. " (We see in the genealogy above that Jeconiah actually had a son. ) Write this man down childless, means that we are to consider him childless even though he had a son as seen in the genealogy. Here the Davidic line was broken. When Jesus came and was born of Mary, He restarted the line, the line of Nathan, which was in direct correspondence to the line of David. Simple explanation for a simple misinterpretation. 2) Boiling things down to the particulars is often required especially when analyzing the nitty gritty of scripture. You touched on a topic which takes away from the consistency argument and moved it towards evolution and creationism topics. It is within my opinion that the linguistic system, which you have made claim of(without evidential backing), is inaccurate. I am sure you believe my dating systems are inaccurate as well. You tried move the topic to different grounds, instead of refuting m argument as it still stands. I would happy to debate you later on whose system of language background is valid. For now though, let"s stick to things which we know and which are topical. I personally do not see how the tower of Babel conflicts with people in America and their languages, especially if you believe in Pangaea. You made inference through material that I do not trust and because we have two different opinions on the situation I feel we cannot go any further. We are checking the consistency of the Bible and not the Consistency of the Bible against any kind of Evolutionary process. To go back to the actual argument, in order that I may clarify, the first verse is a genealogy and the second is the actual account of how it happened. Again, you are reading things out of context. My argument stands. 3) I would like to submit that the last too arguments it seems that you have tried to move the subject left or right. In this way you brought up my particularity with the translation. I am more familiar with the KJV, my study Bible, which contains some of resources and many notes, is in KJV, and I find that the KJV tends to be more accurate. If I use the NIV or any other version it is only because I have checked it against the KJV and Hebrew text. We can debate whether or not KJV is more accurate than NIV later. My opponent attempted to show that the Bible was inconsistent with the Moses argument and attempted to translate Father-in-law by his own methods. However, it is invalid because they only give one translation in PROs example when the word actually has several translations. I translated the same word you used in your resource and found that it has many meanings. Check this link> . http://translation.babylon.com... Your argument has failed. 4) To be honest I don"t know where you went with this one. So, I shall clarify once more. Exodus 34:6-7 "6 And the lord passed before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving the iniquity and transgressions and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children"s, unto the third and fourth generation. " What is this is saying? It says that if neither the father, nor son does not repent, then the burden of sin carries on. Ezekiel 18: 20 "The soul that sineth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. " So, if the son repents of his sins then the transgressions of his father shall cease, then and there. However, if the son fails to repent then the sin carries on throughout the generations. I think this should clarify. I don"t see how this form of repentance is against scripture as you failed to provide evidence for. I am sure that this coincides with Old Testament scripture as I have studied this material for almost 2 decades. If you are referring to New Testament salvation, then the explanation is this: Through Jesus we are cleansed of our sins. Hope this clarifies. 5) Just because you believe something or have an opinion that something is irrelevant does not make it so. I don"t think your understanding what I"m saying. The 26th year is according to one nation. She was still alive in the 36th year of Asa"s reign. The first date was according to one nations system and the other date was according to another dating system. If Isreal split at about 930 BC then the 36th year is around the same time as the 26th through some mathematics its easy to see how the two dates correspond with one another. I will attempt to mimic your argument with your example. This is basically what you"ve done with your inference. Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993. Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 5753. It would be easy to say that there is an inconsistency between the two. However, the dates are the same; they merely are used in different dating systems and therefore seem dissimilar. Likewise, the dates regarding Baasha are the same because of the methods by which the two nations date things. Your own example proves my point. My counter argument stands. 6) I will attempt to mimic the oppositions argument with this syllogism. All murder is bad. All murder is good. This is the kind or type of contradiction the PRO is trying to depict, but if he had not left the rest of the two verses out it actually makes sense. All murder, which is derived from hate, racism, and from any evil intent is bad. All murder, which is derived from self defense is good. There is no contradiction within these argument. However, through the carful wording of the PRO he has given the illusion of contradiction. Good works should be seen. Good works should not be seen. This is a contradiction, or so it seems" My opponent fails to realize that words are nothing without their meanings. Thus, one word in a sentence can make a difference. a)Matthew 5:16 (KJV) "16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. " b)Matthew 6:1 KJV "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. " So, the actual logical premises are: Good works should be seen for the glory of God Good works should not be seen for the glory of man. This translates to" Good works should be seen for the glory of God. Good works should not be seen for the not glory of God. The second premise contains a double negative which makes it a positive. (not be seen/not glory of God. ) Therefore, we do easy math" 2nd premise = Good works should be seen for the glory of God. Both premises are equal and consistent. I find no fault in these verses. The only contradiction is the one you make in your imagination. All in all, the truth stands valid. I will say it is one thing to watch someone twist the Word from the sidelines, but it is quite another thing to be right on the battle line and watching the opposition bend the Bible before my very eyes. People have forgotten the meaning of truth and validity. There inference is fallible. I will conclude with the following verse. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. "