The Bible was inspired by God

I begin by addressing the verses Pro has brought into our discussion. In this passage regarding bathing, the Bible does not demonstrate any knowledge of bacteria or viruses. Claiming that bathing in water for seven days will make one clean is quite different from claiming that bathing in water will cleanse one . Furthermore, bathing in water does make one "completely clean," since water does NOT remove all germs from one's body. This is why we use soap. Debunking the other verses Pro cites: Pro claims that since the bible claims the Earth is flat, and that people did not think the Earth was circular, this is evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired. This is false: "The ancients were well aware the world was a sphere. Pythagoras (6th century B.C.) is generally credited with having first suggested a round Earth. Aristotle (4th century B.C.) agreed and supported the theory with observations such as that the southern constellations rise higher in the sky when a person travels south. He also noted that during a lunar eclipse, the Earth"s shadow is round. Eratosthenes (3rd century B.C., head librarian at the Library of Alexandria) built on their ideas and calculated the circumference of the Earth with remarkable accuracy at about 252,000 stadia." [c] Job 26:7 (He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing): People saw that nothing held up the moon and sun, and furthermore, no one would have seen anything holding up the Earth. It would be reasonable to suppose the Earth was hung from nothing based on these two observations. This is far from a miraculous claim. Job 37:7( He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work) Pro claims this passage was not possible without knowing about fingerprints. Pro is simply misreading the passage, and it appears Pro did not carefully read the verse in question. "His work" refers to God's work. The passage is saying that God will seal up the hands of men so that the men will know God's work/power. Fingerprinting has nothing to do with this passage. Gen. 3:19 (for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return) The people were aware at the time that dead corpses would decompose into dirt (dust), and they were also able to observe that many living things (such as plants) sprung from the ground. For this reason, it is not a far stretch to guess that humans also came from the ground. I also note that this response is not at all surprising, since when asked where did humans come from, the only logical answer is "the Earth." After all, If humans did not come from the ground, where else could they have come from? The moon? Thus, this observation is hardly miraculous. I suggest Pro cite sources for any more verses he brings in. I also request that Pro research his own claim before arguing. Pro has made several factually incorrect claims in his arguments so far. It undermines his own reputability, and I view the lack of effort as disrespect. I move on to Pro's claim that "There has to be evidence that [The Bible] was changed, otherwise the benefit of the doubt is given to it." First, experiments have shown that eyewitness accounts are often inaccurate. [1] This suggests that even if the original storytellers were writing of their experiences, they did not give an accurate account. Furthermore, humans are notorious for their inaccurate storytelling and memory, especially when the story is passed from person to person. A simple game of telephone demonstrates this. Considering that for the bible, the stories were passed down for hundreds of years before being written down, it makes far more sense to assume the story was indeed changed, unless evidence is provided otherwise. Pro also claims that "the public was not allowed to read the Bible," and therefore the church did not have any motivation to revise the Bible. I ask Pro to cite his source. This is simply untrue. Pro also asks: "Also, if they could just change it to fit their requirements, why were they afraid of the public reading it." Neither I, (nor any historical sources, to my knowledge), have suggested that the church was concerned about the public reading the bible. As a friendly reminder, I remind Pro that the burden of proof is on him. Pro's entire argument is based on the claim that it was impossible to write the Bible without divine inspiration. The moment i present a plausible explanation (I note Pro himself acknowledges that it is plausible), Pro's argument no longer applies. [c]http://www.todayifoundout.com... [1]http://www.theatlantic.com...