The Bible is a reliable historical document

As to me insulting my opponent by wishing that Satan be upon him, how is that insulting? My opponent said "God bless whoever my opponent is going to be." I was incredibly offended by what my opponent said here but I did not mention it because that is his religious beief and I didn't want to mess with that. But then he feels that he has the right to tell me I can't say the same thing but with my religion I'm going to say something? Listen up people, Satanists are being unfairly discriminated against!* Now on to my opponent's actual argument. He says that he does not want this to turn into an evolution vs. creation debate. I can respect that. But it will need to be brought up when we're treating the Bible as a historical document. If the world was created in seven days then it is a reliable historical document. If it wasn't(and it wasn't) then the Bible is not a reliable historical document. So I will be bringing the topic up.C1First, I would like to call into question my opponent's source where he gets most of his information from. When I clicked on his link, it took me to a page that said, "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry". We are looking at the Bible in a historical context though, so we need to be objective. My opponent's only source is clearly not objective and obviously biased towards the affirmation of the resolution. But to look at his specific point, he does not write much. He copied and pasted a graph from the obviously biased website, carm.org and then writes about two paragraphs of summary. But he does not actually write anything to back up his assertion or defend the information in the graph. Of the two small paragraphs he writes, 3/4 of it is describing how reliable the Bible is. He writes:""The New Testament is the best documented ancient text in the world, and the Old Testament has a 99% accuracy when we compare the Dead Sea Scrolls to each other.""But where does he bring the evidence that they are the same. All he brought wa his graph that claims 95% accuracy of the Bible without showing how or why. He then writes:""It should be obvious that the biblical documents, especially the New Testament documents, are superior in their quantity, time span from original occurrence, and textual reliability.""It might be obvious if my opponent backed up his assertions with a little more than copying what was written on an obviously biased website. My opponent literally brings absolutely no more than this. I will say that he should bring some objective evidence before we can get this debate underway.C2Now as to my opponent's second argument, look it up in his source, he completely copies and pastes everything from his source word for word. If my opponent brings his own argument or even a summary of the argument he copied, then I will respond to it.I will choose not to bring an argument this round and will bring one after my opponent does.*To readers and my opponent, that was kind of tongue in cheek. I'm making fun of the fact that my opponent would take something like that seriously. Take the conduct point away if you wish but I'm going to have some fun if I'm doing such a played out debate topic.