The bible-written by schizophrenics- not the man himself.

Well, my opponent has forfeited his round. I hope he can come back to discuss this debate, otherwise I am forced to wait for him for a few other rounds. Contention one: “This man” is, as I interpreted it, to be God. One of the chief attributes of the Christian God is omnipotence, which, allows the “deity…to do anything it chooses”[1] Consider this logical syllogism: 1. God is omnipotent and can do any action/deed he/it chooses. 2. Writing the scripture, and the bible, is an action. 3. God might have written the bible or scripture. Notice that I wrote, “might have”, because it is a possibility. There is no direct evidence to prove that God definitely (must have) written the scriptures. But, I will present a few arguments that might or might not attribute the work of the bible to the Lord: Contention two: The Bible’s perfection In ((1 John 1:5), it states, ”And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” [2] I will now do a little bit of literary analysis here: light is associated with white, which in turns is associated with purity and innocence [3], and darkness the hours of night and the presence of shadows, evil, or depression”, or, in other words, negativity. [4] Pure lightness of God, without the presence of any darkness, is perfection. To be perfect is to “conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type.”[5] In other words, a god of light conforms to man’s ideal of a being entirely made of light, a force of good. Therefore, god’s work must be perfect. It is here where I will argue that the bible has no contradictions: Much of the “contradictions” of the bible, especially the new testament, are based on modern concepts that juxtapose sharply with the ancient concepts used in the bible. One so called “contradiction” is the episode where Jesus curses the fig tree, which, despite the seemingly attack against his benevolent nature, however, refers to his deity-like authority over nature: “As deity, therefore, the earth and its fullness are his (Psa. 24:1). He has the sovereign right to use the elements of creation to accomplish those higher goals which man, limited in his knowledge, may not perceive at a given moment in time. And that includes the destruction of a tree,” [6] An excellent series of debates, set by one of the participants, Reformed Arsenal, discusses such “errors” in the New Testament…*For the sake of space, I recommend that my opponent read such debates to get a full picture on the explanation of the Bible and its “errors”. In addition, the Bible’s structure, while hardly an important factor, is remarkable, since: “Written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers, yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology. Despite their complexity, differences in writing styles and vast time periods, the books of the Bible agree miraculously well in theme, facts and cross-referencing.” [7] “History, prophecy, poetry, and theology”: this should not be contested with. The history refers to the scope of the bible’s narrative, from the separation of light and darkness and the creation of the world (Book of Genesis) to the end of Revelations, where Christ rises again, covering entire decades from Moses’ Exodus and the story of Job, and so forth. “Poetry” refers to the verses in the bible. Despite much contestation, there is enough evidence to at least indicate that the bible was written in poetry since: it includes the prospect of parallelism, accentual rhythm (indicating a deliberate choice of words and syllables often seen in poetic practices), and so forth. [8] The word prophecy is also obvious, and refers to the several predictions in the books of the scripture, one example being, “"Therefore, my Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, ha-almah [the young woman or virgin] harah [is pregnant or is about to become pregnant or shall conceive], and bear a son, and [she or you] shall call his name Immanuel." [9] This, in a literary context, might have been referring to Jesus, who is the son of the Lord, and born of Mary, a virgin. 2. “…agree miraculously well in theme, facts, and cross-referencing”. There is much support for this statement, as seen in the symbolism of Satan as the serpent, in the Book of Genesis**, patron of lions and fierce creatures, and the dragon of Revelations. Ultimately, the theme here is destruction that is seen in the figure of the fallen angel. Whether or not, considering the fact that the long history of the Bible ["The original manuscripts for the OT. Written between 1450 BC and 400 BC. Written in archaic Hebrew, gradually changed to modern square script Hebrew after 400 BC, and still used to this day. Around 500 AD the Masoretes developed a system of vowel and accents to punctuate the text, they also standardised the text and content, preparing it for printing much later (Psalter 1477, Full OT 1488). The oldest surviving material was the Masoretic from the 9C, until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 from 2-1C BC" [11]], it is a miracle or not that the Bible retains much of its detailed structure. Whether this is a miracle, and proof of its divine nature, or merely just a coincedence (and an example of extreme faithfulness on part of its believers), is up to the voters to decide. *See, "The New Testamnent contains no genuine contradictions". ReformedArsenal addressed much of the errors that I myself presented rather adequately, in my view, and used both logic and interpreations by reputed scholars to prove that the seeming contradictions of the bible were not so contradictory after all. Remember, and I strongly encourage all voters to remember, I am doing this, for the sake of space. [10] [1] www.wikipedia.com: Omnipotence [2] Book of John, chapter one, verse five [3] www.wikipedia.com: Black and white dualism [4] www.wikipedia.com: darkness [5] www.dictionary.com: perfect, first definition given [6] www.christiancourier.com: Why did Jesus “Curse” the Fig Tree? [It also explains the fact that “curse” is merely to place judgment on, and does not include the connotations of profanity.] [7] www.allabouttruth.org; Who wrote the bible? [8] www.wikipedia.com; Biblical poetry [10] www.debate.org: The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions [with the following participants: Man-is-good, tvellot, and so on] [11] www.gentles.info: Bible history flowchart [9] www.wikipedia.com: Isaiah, 7:14