Foolishness in the bible that no god would ever put into effect thus proving that god is false

I look forward to a civil exchange since there is no disclaimer on this debate to suggest we will insult each other. My opponent raised many issues that will require lengthy discussions and since this is limited by the number of characters that can be used I will try to summarize my rebuttals. Rebuttal: The Bible changed too much, how do we know it can be trusted. Please consider the following verse found in John 3:16 and take note of the dates. The dates mentioned is important to determine whether the Bible changed in such a way not to know what it said before as my opponent claims. Tertullian (c. 160-c. 230) - In His address to Nicodemus He says: "So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " ANF Vol. 01 P616 Novatian (a. d. 210"280. ). .even as God also says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that every one that believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life," 1611 KJV " For God so loued "e world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. 1977 NASB - For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 2009 HCSB - For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life. Looks to me the meaning is the same over almost 2000 years. My opponent cast doubt on the reliability of the Bible but uses verses from it below to try and prove it is not reliable. How does He know the verses He quotes are correct to use it truthfully and so to discredit God? His premise is flawed to say the least and cast doubt on every argument he makes that is based on some particular scripture. My opponent argues that the various translations is supposed to cast doubt on the Word of God but in fact the opposite is true. The translation of the Bible into many different languages actually guarded that the Bible could be corrupted. When local corruption was done on the text it could be identified because of the vast amount of materials that was known universally. The KJV translators realized this and also mention it in their preface: "If any doubt hereof, he may be satisfied by examples enough, if enough will serve the turn. First, St. Jerome saith, Multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante translata, docet falsa esse quae addita sunt, etc. ; i. e. , "The Scripture being translated before in the languages of many nations, doth show that those things that were added (by Lucian and Hesychius) are false" [S. Hieron. praef. in 4. Evangel. ]. So St. Jerome in that place. " My opponent likes to use the "telephone game" as an example of how things may be distorted. The fact is, as everyone knows, if you play the game with people who are PAYING ATTENTION then you are likely to convey the correct message. The example is not so good because half way bad is not all the way bad. My opponent seems to think that cellphones, email, and the internet was available to Israel and the early believers and should have used it rather than scrolls or books that were current in their day. This reasoning is also shown to be incorrect based on the scripture quoted above and taking note of the meaning that did not change over 2000 years. #1 " Why would you not believe something based on faith. If your spouse or child tell you they love you do you not believe and accept it by faith? Science cannot prove that they are truthful or not. You cannot either. Your acceptance or rejection is based on faith. We have faith in a truthful testimony. That is not the same as how you paint the picture. The Big bang, dark matter are faith based. No scientist has ever observed it. The definition of faith in the Bible is "believing in things as if they exist but cannot see" (my paraphrase). Perhaps my opponent can define a Eunuch and explain why he says it can never happen so I can properly rebut his claim. Matthew 10:37 Love " You claim it is sick to ask someone to love you more than their father or mother but then you say you love your family more. You apply the same bias you argue against. Secondly, it does not say you should STOP loving your mother or father or family. You seem to confuse the concept reasoned for. Tell me something, if you, your mother and wife are drowning in the sea and you can choose to save only one, who will it be? Does it mean you did not love yourself or the others when you choose one above the rest? 2 Samuel 23:8 "One time" I went to a Church camp that lasted a week and had a great time. This is obviously not a literal "one time" as in at the exact same time concept. You should read the context, the people are honored over their lifetime and not a single event. 2 Thessalonians 2:8 My opponent fail to distinguish between figure of speech which is common in the Bible. If I say: you look like a pig. Does that mean you are a pig? Leviticus 18:23 Bestiality is real even today. Most countries outlaw it and it is therefore not out in the open. Go to Thailand, you will be amazed what you find there, not to mention porn on the internet. You seem to live in an isolated perfect world where these things are not happening, unfortunately it is not true. Ezekiel 20:25-26 There is a principle in the Bible whereby God stops reasoning with people because they continually reject him. In that respect He gives them over to their desires and cannot repent. It is the same as saying: "you got what you deserved" which is common place even today. Try finding that verse in the NT. You do realize that the NT replaced the OT. That is why it is both called Testaments. I would have liked to address this point at length but cannot due to the restrictions of the debate. Judges 1:19 If you tell people to build a house and they try to build it using one screw driver and mud, does that mean you are a fool? Obviously not. The same applies to your example. Jesus Christ came to earth and was shown to be the Son of God. His life, miracles and legacy is well attested to by various Christian and non-Christian sources. The very word "Christ" designates the Messiah of the OT and when studying the term Christ in the OT it is clear that Christ was said to be God. Therefore, there is historical evidence for the existence of God who came to earth and made know his will to mankind. That makes sense to me that a loving Creator would do something like that. The limitations of science are evident in that it cannot conclusively prove or disprove historical evidence. Try doing an experiment to determine who your ancestor was 100 generations ago. It is a fact accepted that I must have had an ancestor because I am here today. Having said that and believing that based on logic, not material evidence, I must admit that I do not know what my ancestor looked like; I never met him and know absolutely nothing about him. I bet it is the same with just about everyone reading this right now. Pro ma provide what he thinks is evidence but it is not so convincing. Sadly all proof he presents quoting a scripture will be doubtful because he has already stated the Bible cannot be from God and therefore everything He quotes is a possible misrepresentation.