The Bible is not the word of God

Response to "Reasons for Examining the Bible Scientifically"My opponent asserts that because people throughout the ages have interpreted this (and various other passages) as scientific, that we must do so. However, it is entirely possible (in fact it is both plausible and probable) that they were in correct. No Christian interprets the statement in Joshua which was used to support a geocentric solar system to mean that the sun actually stood still. Rather we understand that the author was using (perhaps unknowingly) a similar convention to when we say "the sun set" or "the sun rose. " Furthermore, to read these accounts as a strictly scientific account would be to force a scientific understanding of the universe onto an author who excited two thousand years before such scientific rationalism would even find its prototypical form (in Socrates). To read this as a strict scientific account does injustice to the text and ignores the original context and capacity of the author. Response to "The Flood Revisited" My opponent has acknowledged the possibility of a supreme sovereign God who can do all logical things. This is indeed a basic tennent of theism. My opponent must now explain why such a being could bend the laws of physics to allow for all the animals to be in one ark, or to erase the traces of the flood. If he is indeed sovereign, then this is possible. My opponent's argument only succeeds if such a God does not exist, but he has already acknowledged that such a God does exist. Furthermore my opponent asserts that "A Creator would not reveal historically and scientific inaccuracies for several reasons. " Apart from the fact that my opponent has not present any inconsistent texts, he also has not proven that his to reasons (which is hardly several) are true. Do we have irrefutable proof that such a being would desire to be univerally known? My opponent then launches into a list of "contradictions" he believes will invalidate the Bible. Jesus Last WordsNone of those texts say that the words he said were his last words. This is not true in English, nor is it true in Greek. In fact, the Greek lacks any sort of temporal indicators other than simple sequencing. If I wake up, brush my teeth, get in my car, and go to the store. .. is it contradictory for me to later say "I woke up and went to the store. " Of course not. My latter statement is not mutually exclusive to my earlier, it simply includes different details. In fact, if we read carefully, we see that there is actually a simple harmony. Matthew records that Jesus cried in a loud voice (1), then cried again (2). Luke records that Jesus cried in a loud voice (1), then said something else (2)John records that Jesus said something. (3)Jesus cried "Eli Eli. .. " (1) then cried "Father, unto. .. " (2) and then said "It is finished" (3)Note that none of the accounts say "this was his last words" or say "he said this then immediately he gave up the ghost. " Who moved David to anger? A simple observation and knowledge of the original language reveals the answer. In hebrew, the word "satan" means "adversary. " The Lord is acting as an adversary to David (and all of Israel) in this account. In 2 Samuel we see it refer to the LORD specifically, in 1 Chronicles the author chose to call him by an adjective desriptor. Can God be Seen? My opponent seems to miss the nuances of symbolic language. The Bible affirms that God is Spirit, and Invisible. At times, the Bible uses anthropomorphic langauge to refer to God, either to explain a characteristic, or to make the unknowable God concievable. We see examples where God says of himself that he desires to take Israel under his wings like a mother hen. Are we to believe that we must understand that God has wings? Of course not. Similar langauge is being used in these instances. When the Bible says "Face to Face" it is not litterally refering to the face of God (God does not have a face, as God is spirit and does not have a body). Similarly, when it says that Moses will see his backparts, the Bible is refering to a sort of after image of the Lord. Moses himself bears a similar after image when he returns from the montain, as he is actually glowing because of his interaction with God. This then correlates to other passages where it says that No one has (or can) see God, because it is using litteral language. How can a man see God when God is invisible? Who did they see at the tomb? My opponent must believe that our audience is rather simple if he thinks they will buy this trick. Again, if I went to the mall with 3 of my friends (Tim, Doug, and Kevin) and am asked later what I did today and say "I went to the mall with Doug," am I lying or contradictory? No, perhaps the person I am speaking to doesn't know Tim and Kevin, perhaps I had an argument with Tim and Kevin and didn't want to note that they were there. Whatever the reason, I simply described the situation highlighting a particular detail. As far as the other issues presented. John and Mark reports that the young man was inside the tomb, Matthew and Luke are describing what happens outside. So it is likely that there was a figure/figures outside, as well as one inside. This is surely not contradictory since it is describing to different locations. As far as the difference between describing them as Angel(s) (Matthew and John) they are simply describing what something is (likely after later theological reflection) while the reports describing them as seeing men (Mark and Luke). Likely what happened is the women came back and said "We saw these men who were wearing white outside the tomb, but they seemed different" and later Matthew and John reflected upon that and said "Those were Angels" while Luke and Mark simply reported what was described. My opponent closes by saying "The evidence is overwhelming, the Christian Bible is not the Word of God. " To this I respond "This is not only not overwhelming, it barely makes it by as evidence. "Thank you.