The Bible is not the word of God

My opponent has radically misunderstood my argument. I am not saying that because the God of the Bible can do miracles, the Bible is the word of God. Rather, what I am saying is that my opponent is arguing against the Bible because it presents miraculous signs (that defy natural understanding). However, my opponent's argument only works if miraculous signs are not possible. This is the flip side of the following argument. A) The Bible says that it is the Word of God B) The Word of God is true C) Therefore what the Bible says is true D) Therefore the Bible is the Word of God His argument flows thusly A) The Bible presents miracles B) Miracles are impossible C) Therefore the Bible is inaccurate and not the Word of God My opponent must PROVE that B is true in order to reach the conclusion of C. .. he has not done so. This is circular reasoning at its best and amounts to "The Bible is not the Word of God, therefore the Bible is not the Word of God. " He MUST prove B, which he has not done. Contradictions My opponent has provided a definition of Contradiction. .. however I am unable to determine which dictionary he has used, as he did not cite it. Furthermore, according to the Random house dictionary, a contradiction is much more than simply something that is inconsistent. Rather it defines it as "a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous. " [A] Furthermore, in reference to a debate the standard definition of a contradiction is something that violates the law of non-contradiction. [B] That is, something cannot be both A and Not-A. So far, nothing that my opponent has presented fulfills this requirement, and therefore cannot be considered a contradiction. Since my opponent has not challenged any of my explanations of his alleged contradiction, they stand. I will now address the next alleged contradictions that my opponent has brought forth. How many years of famine? This is not a difficult issue to resolve. My opponent has been consistently quoting the King James Version of the Bible. However, the King James Bible was translated using texts available in the 16th century. In the subsequent 400 years we have found numerous additional manuscripts, and the majority of manuscripts reflect the number "three" in both accounts. This is reflected by the majority of modern translations including the NIV, ESV, and HCSB. It is likely that this reflects a copyist error as the numbers three and seven bear similar spellings in Hebrew. This may seem like a problem for the Doctrine of Inspiration in Christianity, however the Doctrine only extends to the Autographs (originals). [C] Can the entire Earth be seen from atop a mountain? My opponent again insists on a wooden and literal understanding that would be foreign to the author. The words in both Greek and Hebrew for "Earth" are also used of "Land. " To say "He saw the whole earth" in Hebrew of Greek could also mean "He saw the whole land," meaning everything he could see. Furthermore, both of these accounts refer to supernatural vision, not natural vision. In Isaiah, the "see-er" is God. God can see the whole earth from wherever he is. .. regardless of the shape of the planet. The second is speaking of a vision that is revealed to Jesus by the Devil. Furthermore, it does not say he saw the whole earth, it says he saw every kingdom. It is entirely possible that the Devil took him to a high mountain and then gave him a vision of each Kingdom in the world (maybe it was even like a projection in front of him. .. ) Whatever the actual nature of the seeing, it is supernatural in source and therefore cannot be bound by the natural laws of line of sight. Paul's Opinnion my opponent cites a statement where Paul offers an "opinion. " However, this is an inaccurate representation of the word. The word "Gnomey" in Greek mean "Thought, Judgement, or Opinion" and comes from the root "knowledge. " This is not Paul simply offering his opinion, rather it is him offering his theological statement. Furthermore, the Doctrine of Inspiration includes using the human mind, cultural context, language, and thoughts in the process of inspiration. This being Paul's thoughts does not preclude it being inspired of God. Furthermore, when Paul says "I not the Lord" it is in contrast to "The Lord, not I. " When we look at the commands that are of "The Lord, not I" we see that they are teachings directly from Christ. So the contrast "I not the Lord" refers to a teaching that is not a quotation of Jesus. Paul was being careful here to indicate that he is not quoting Jesus. .. not indicating that his judgement is not authoritative or inspired of God. I look forward to my opponent's next round. [A] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [B] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [C] . http://carm.org...