Because it is a product of God's inspiration, the Bible is necessarily true.

Thank you, THEBOMB, for you insightful arguments. Readers, voters, and Pro himself will remember that in round 2 I agreed that the Christian God is believed to have the maximal attributes listed by Pro, but since the integrity of the scriptures that lay out those attributes is being disputed in this debate, I asserted that the view that the Christian God ACTUALLY has those attributes is not to be presupposed. Last round, my opponent attempted to prove the omniscience of the Christian God by citing biblical references to natural phenomena that have been verified by modern science. Pro, in this instance, hopes that the whole of his arguments (i.e. his conclusion that God is omniscient) is in fact greater than the sum of its parts (i.e. each natural phenomenon cited). This is not the case, as each of the cited phenomena claimed to be known by God before modern science at most proves only that God knew these facts, not that he knows everything. In the first place, Pro's examples of scientific knowledge supposedly too advanced for its time are hardly conclusive: 1. Jewish culture was not the only ancient culture that considered incest taboo. The pagan Greeks even did so, as evidenced by the abhorrence of the incest of Oedipus and his subsequent shame and exile [1]. Ancient Chinese culture discouraged incest, as did Islamic and Hindu cultures [2,3]. Clearly, the inspiration of the Christian God was not necessarily the source of this view of incest, as cultures not fortunate enough to receive such inspiration came to the same conclusion about its harms to a community. 2. This is a bit of a stretch on several levels. For example, I could confidently make the claim that within a relatively small geographic area, say, a city, at any given time of day there are people both in bed and at work. Expanding this area to the entire planet, we see that this claim does not necessarily assert that it will be both day and night on earth when this time comes. Additionally, there are instances in which the Bible seemingly contradicts the idea of a revolving earth: •Jos 10:13 – Instead of saying that the earth stopped rotating, it says the sun stood still. •Psalm 104:5 – It says that the earth "can never be moved." 3. The Hebrew word that corresponds to the English phrasal verb "to stretch out" is Strong's H5186 natah [4]. As one can see at my cited source, nowhere among the listed Biblical uses of this Hebrew verb is the English translation of "to expand." As such, the assumption that this signifies the expanding universe is unwarranted. 4-7. There are plenty of examples of the Bible getting natural phenomena wrong. In light of the following examples, we might more reasonably assume that the ancient human authors simply spewed their own interpretations of nature, often erring and occasionally writing resemblances of truth that a modern, Christian-biased mind would see as evidence, while conveniently ignoring the errors: •The Bible, in Genesis 1:16, erroneously lists the moon among the sun and other stars as sources of light, whereas today we know the moon merely reflects the light of the sun. •Leviticus 11:6 lists rabbits as chewers of cud, while modern animal science has proven that rabbits are in fact not ruminant. •Deuteronomy 14:11-18 lists bats as birds, whereas today we know bats to be mammals. •Genesis tells the story of the universe being created in a seven day period, whereas today we know it took billions of years. Pro has, then, failed to demonstrate the omniscience of the Christian God and has yet to even attempt to demonstrate his omnipotence. Accordingly, Pro's fourth and fifth assertions about Biblical Inspiration must be disregarded. In addition to failing to demonstrate the Christian God's omniscience and omnipotence, Pro has failed to demonstrate the Christian God's will to "give the people truth." As I have shown examples of untruths within the Bible, we must assume that God is not omniscient and/or not willing to transmit truth through the Bible's human authors, both of which are requisite to the doctrine of Biblical Inspiration. Pro has failed to demonstrate that God has the necessary attributes for Biblical Inspiration, and therefore the integrity of the Bible's truth cannot be taken for granted (i.e. it is NOT NECESSARILY true). Thus, the resolution is negated. _________________________________________ 1- http://en.wikipedia.org... 2- http://books.google.com... 3- http://en.wikipedia.org... 4- http://www.blueletterbible.org...