The Bible is a work of man, not God.

Well first of all you have not yet proved that the bible is not a work of god, yet you use that as a proof that the bible is not a work of god. That really doesn't make sense. Its akin to me saying "the sky is blue because the sky is blue" Your contemplating that the bible isn't written by god because the Old testament was written a thousand years before the birth of Jesus Christ. You further answer that those who wrote it really had no idea of God's true word. By I say to you that the situation is worse than just what you claim. The bible is not one book its 66 different books. And that it was written by one person , get this it has over 30 authors! Whoah if I was using your logic that would make the bible worth the same as a book stand. But the same evidence that you use is the same reason why the Bible is a work of god and not man. Two human beings are so completely different that if two different people where to go about creating their own religion they would be completely different. And the bible isn't two different people its more than 30! So 30 people who have never met each other write more than 66 different books, and yet they fit together? And yet we have people prophesying things in Isaiah and Psalms that come true in Mathews and Acts. We have a book that has never been altered to be more ‘cohesive.' With every few pages of the bible your flipping a few hundred years. And yet the bible re-affirms the bible. It is consistent with itself and that is a miracle in itself it's a testament that the bible is indeed a work of god. ". So many people today attempt to use the Bible to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians, when they are only just small and scared people, hiding behind what they claim to be a work of God in order to justify themselves. This cannot possibly be a work of God." Your argument also isn't very clear You have a run on sentence that is confusing me, who are you calling sacred the gays and lesbians or the small group of people. Also sacred means devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated. and lastly Christians aren't a small group of people so I'm going to dare to assume you mean the gays and lesbians are the small group of people your refer to because the are a minority, but then why do you call them sacred? "The Bible does contain some good guidelines to live by (such as do unto others as you would have done unto you), however, too often are pieces that justify hatred taken out of context for bigots to use at their leisure." It's interesting to note that Yourself admit to hatred coming from text taken out of context. I don't see how that helps your argument. And yes the New Testament was written after Jesus's death, what would you rather have them give an account of Jesus before he was born? Years after his death, but all come from eye witness and personal accounts, hey that's good enough for your newspaper. Your last claim is that the bible is wrong because science is right, and science Is right because …science says science is right? That's All I could tell you said because you used scientific theories to defend science. If we're truly measuring the winner of a debate by the strength of his argument I don't think we should just accept the fact that science is true and then using against the opponent. Than the opponent should be able to accept the fact this his argument is true and use it. The thing is science relied on carbon dating a system that has been proven over and over again to be wrong, and at the very least you can accept the fact that there is a certain factor of unreliability. If you can't let me help you. The Carbon dating system relies on radio-active carbon atom isotope carbon-14 (14C). A sample of something is broken apart by an acid, and turned into a liquid. this liquid is then tested to determine the amount of carbon decay. It then uses the results in a calculation that is dependent upon a certain ratio to find a date. However carbon dating always yields "extraneous" solutions. Solutions that don't match the sate of data. So then Scientist take the one that makes most since to them, and or the ones that fits with their theories. So all of science is relying on a non-objective, system of measurement. Carbon dating cannot be completely trusted. Not to mention there are also technical reasons why it is inaccurate. I don't want to make the debate about carbon dating there's enough controversy to have a separate debate on that. "Make no mistake, I am not disputing the existence of a God in this debate. I am only arguing that the Bible was not written by God nor Jesus Christ. For if the Bible was, I would think that such large human assumptions (such as the science I mentioned in the last paragraph) would be stricken from the book, for I would think that God would know the origins of humans, our planet, and, not to mention, the entire universe." Now you're saying that your not refuting the existence of god, your just saying that the bible was written by god. Yet your asserting that if god did exist man knows more about the world than god does. That doesn't make any sense if god is the creator than god would know about the world then we do. And if God is the creator he knows more about the origins of humans our planet and the past, and if there is an inconsistency with what god says and what man says , if god exist, he would be right. And yet you recognize that god exist in this debate, but you don't recognize that humans could be wrong, and that god is superior to humans. In another approach who is more credible to being infallible? The bible who in its 66 book original virgin has never been changed in the course of human history. Or science, who's goal is to constantly change, and weed out errors that it previously thought were true. The bible has more credibility for being infallible than science. I don't think science ever claims to be infallible. However your pitting science against Christianity and there has to be a winner. And I would take the bible something stable that has never changed and that no one has been able to find a decisive irrefutable error, over science , where a breakthrough could see previous long lasting scientific proofs come crashing down in a second. Refuting that man knows more than god.