The Bible contains errors and contradictions, and it can therefore not be the word of God

Well, Pro, I only have an hour to post this, so here goes. I'm sorry if this round is not as comprehensive as my last; I'll have more time to work on my final and third round argument, during which time I'll wrap up all of my arguments and rebuttals. For now, a quick response to the previous round (since I don't have a lot of time ) -- 1. Pro begins by stating that if two statements say different things, that they would be contradictory of one another. I agree. He says "You may call it lying, mistaking or something else by your wish." No, I would call it contradictory; however, my point was that a mistranslation or mistake wouldn't make what the original text was trying to say a contradiction in the first place. 2. Pro continues, "The God Christians believe in is perfect. He would never misinform people. However, by looking at those mistakes in the Bible, it is misinformation." Nowhere through the mistranslation of the Bible is God deceiving anyone. Also, perhaps God is not being deceitful - He's being straightforward (and I use the term He loosely) but people are just misunderstanding or misrepresenting Him. Moreover, Pro's false conclusion in this regard is rooted in fallacies. 3. Next Pro asks what makes the Bible more authentic than other scriptures. In actuality, all religious books have come under scrutiny for contradicting facts throughout the work. These mistakes probably exist for the same reason [1]. 4. Pro quotes, ""He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." The problem is that the Bible doesn't come directly from God. Again, God isn't responsible for the mistranslations. 5. Additionally, Pro ignores that there is truth in the message of the Bible in terms of the lessons. For instance, he writes, "How do we get to know what the truth is, if we through God's work cannot conclude whether Solomon had 40,000 or 4,000 stalls for horses?" How many horses Solomon had was completely irrelevant t the lesson in the Bible. 7. "Con's example that if Solomon had 40,000 stalls, then he also had 4,000 stalls, is invalid, simply because this is not an IQ test, but information that is being given to us." My example is perfectly valid. 8. In Greek (the language the New Testament was written in) there are 5 different words for our one word "love." The translators did there best when they translated things. Sometimes they came across words they didn't have a definition for. Here's an example: Lev 11:6 And the hare, because he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you. Bible critics have a little smirk on their face when they point this verse out, thinking they've won. Hares don't chew cud, they point out. True, but they also don't have hoofs of any kind either. Hmm... Here Hebrew, arnebeth - an unidentified animal, but certainly not a hare - possessing as it is said to characteristics not possessed by the hare. The supposed error in the text is due entirely to the translators' assumption that the English hare and the ancient "arnebeth" were identical. Not true. [2] 9. Pro is failing to realize that the Bible is written with poetry and prose, figurative language and allegory. Sometimes it even uses earthy language to get the point across. In Pro's example regarding the animals and the cud, what the Bible actually translates is that extremities and miseries will come upon the people if they don't straighten up. It doesn't have to necessarily mean they will literally eat their own waste (consequently, there's no mention they did). It's like telling someone they're up a certain well known creek without a paddle. No one believes they will literally be in a real river of feces. It's not a passage to be taken literally. 10. Sometimes a verse can seem to say one thing, but really meant something different when it was written. Words like "prevent" "lead" and "perfect" can have different meanings than what they do now. The Lord's Prayer says "Lead Us Not Into Temptation..." to which Bible critics will ask why God would ever lead people into temptation? The word "Lead" would better rendered as "steer" in our language. In other words, Jesus was saying "Don't allow us to wander into temptation steer us the right way instead..." There are many, many different Bible versions with updated English. The Third Millennium Bible and the Modern King James Bible are both good. Sometimes simply reading the Bible in more modern English will clear up any misgivings. References and Sources: [1] http://www.news.faithfreedom.org... [2] http://usminc.org...