The Bible never claims to be God's infallible Word

I was a bit surprised to see that he quoted 1 Cor 7:12 where Paul says, "To the rest I speak, (I, not the Lord) if any man. .. " simply for the fact that I believe that proves MY case and not my opponents. Paul was going out of his way to show that what he was writing was not from God, but from himself. In fact, he does so again in 1 Cor 7:25 ""Now concerning virgins I HAVE NO COMMANDMENT OF THE LORD, yet I give MY judgment. .. " 2 Cor 11:17, "That which I speak, I SPEAK NOT AFTER THE LORD, but as in foolishness, in the confidence of his glory. " If ALL of the Bible is God's Word, how do you reconcile theses passages? As for Jesus saying that His words will never pass away, that in and of itself is not evidence that He was referring to a book that would be put together in it's entirety 367 years after he was born, known as "The Bible". The Bible was not a solid book that came down from heaven as we now know it today. It was also not all written at once. Actually, it was voted on by bishops in 367 AD. (. http://www.churchhistory101.com.........) They decided by VOTE which books made it in and which one did not. The Protestant Church didn't agree until 1647 at the Assembly of Westminster. I would like to know what my opponent believes qualified these men to vote on this matter in the first place. This would have obviously been THE MOST important vote in the history of the world. After all, we are talking about (according to your view) what was God's Word and what was not. My opponent and I will find common ground on one point for sure; the Old Testament claims to CONTAIN God's Word. That does not mean that all of it IS God's Word. There are passages that say, "Thus saith the Lord" in the Old Testament so there can be no doubt that it makes that claim. One could argue that ALL of the Old Testament could be called "scripture". This can not be said for the New Testament. This brings me to my nest point about 2 Peter 3:16: If one does not read the verses above them. It is easy to misinterpret them if one does not read ALL of them together. If we look at the words used in the New Testament for "Scripture", "writings", and "epistle/s" (graphe, grammata, and epistole) we can see that the writings and epistles of the New Testament were never considered Holy, Inspired, or Divine but were considered Tradition and to have wisdom useful for faith and practice. The word "graphe" refers to the Old Testament Writings and is modified by the terms "Inspired", "Holy", and "Prophetic. " This cannot be said of the epistole which were never describe by such terms but were describe by the terms "wisdom" and "tradition. " Graphe is used 50 times in the New Testament and only one time (II Peter 3:16) speaks of New Testament writings. II Pet.3:16 refers to Paul"s letters as epistles (epistole) while referring to the rest[1] of the writings as (graphe) " both of which were subject to being twisted. 2 Peter 3:2 says, " I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. " You will see that Peter was talking about what he Prophets said as to what Paul also wrote of in his epistles. The Apostles considered the writings of the Prophets to be directly from God because they said,"Thus Saith The Lord". The author is COMPARING Paul's epistles to the OT as being abused by unlearned men. In this case Paul's epistles are not seen as 'Scripture' but as abused and twisted by unlearned and unstable men. If the author was not comparing, in this manner, Paul's epistles to the OT why didn't he just say the rest of the epistles? There are two categories - the Scriptures and the epistles - both were being twisted but both were not thought of as Scripture. The writer just says that Paul was given wisdom in his writings but does not think of them as Scripture. Revelation22:18 This is a very interesting book, to say the least. It is also the book that barely made it in. "The archeologists found evidence that the Book of Revelation was surreptitiously put on the list at the last minute by an anonymous staffer to the Pope. " eft. mn/2012/06/archeologists-book-of-revelation-out/ Furthermore, no one even knows for certain who wrote Revelation. All we know for certain is that his name was John. The verse saying that no one can add to the book does not show evidence that he was talking about the rest of the Bible. The New Testament had not even been put together yet. Plus, this was one of the most debated books as for the addition to the cannon. We must also understand that just because the New Testament plagiarizes the Old, it is still not any thing else than speculation that it is the infallible Word of God. I have one last question; John 1:1 and verse 14 tells us what the "WORD" is. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. And the Word was God. " verse 14 "And the Word became flesh (Jesus) and dwelt among us. ." Here the "Word" is defined and I see no mention of the Bible or even Scripture. If the Bible or Scripture is the Word, then why don't you worship the Bible? After all, the "Word" is called "God" in John 1. That is one of the strongest arguments from Christians that believe in the deity of Christ; it's because the "Word" is called "God" and Jesus is called the "Word". Again, if the Bible is the "Word", why is IT TOO not God?