If the Bible were to Be God's word; then it needs to be clear, authoritative, and inerrant.

"(P1) The Bible is inspired by God. " Only the originals, not the copies in our possession. Copies, translations, are not inspired by God, only the originals were. "(P2) God cannot lie. (C) Therefore there cannot be errors in the Bible. " Let's say I can't lie and I write a newspaper article with no lies in it. The newspaper prints my article everyday to two weeks. But, on the last day of the final week they print my article with a lie in it, inserted by the editor of the paper. Whose article is it now? Just because it now contains an error doesn't mean its no longer my article, its still my article, just not in its original form; similarly, just because God's word has been altered doesn't change the fact that it is God's God. Con seems to be arguing that for the copies of the Bible we have today to be God's word, then every single word and letter in them must be from God. This is an extremely ridiculous position. God can't lie, true, but he isn't the one who wrote all the copies/translations of the Bible we have today. So if errors are found in them this in no way contradicts the fact that God can't lie, because God isn't the one who put the errors in there. And putting on error or even a few errors into someone's work, doesn't stop it from being that person's work. The copyrights to the work don't suddenly become yours just because you put an error in it without authorization; so I'm saying that just because men have inserted errors into the Bible doesn't make take away God's ownership of the book. Its like if I change a piece of furniture in your house, does that mean the house is no longer yours? No, it doesn't. The Bible containing some errors doesn't mean God is a liar, but rather, that men have tampered with his work. And unless my opponent can prove to us that there is a contradiction between God's inability to lie, and man's free will to make minor changes to his word, he cannot win this debate. As for the Bible needing to be clear to be God's word, well, I believe it is. It's being clear is, and Pro's only argument to show that its not clear is that many people interpret it differently. But I've refuted that by showing that no matter how clear evidence is in terms of pointing in one direction, people will always find reasons to interpret the evidence to fit their bogus beliefs because they want to go the other direction. So difference of opinion is not proof of unclear evidence; its proof of different approaches to evidence, and egotistical, fanatical attitudes. Pro assumes without proof that evidence can be clear enough to convince everyone to agree, but even if God were to come down from heaven visibly before the world, pick up some atheists with a giant hand and say "Here I am, I am God," there are some that still won't believe. They will call themselves crazy, and brush off the eyewitnesses tangible evidence as part of his own delusion. Many of those who do recognize him as God still won't serve him anyway. How do I know? Look at the world today. Many people agree that certain actions are wrong, yet they do them anyway, why? They are plain and simple wicker or selfish. Men agree that rape is wrong, but they do it anyway. They know stealing is wrong but do it anyway. I don't think that God showing himself to these ones is going to make a difference in how they live their lives. So evidence alone can't make people agree. People will do what they want regardless of the evidence, and seek ways to justify it as if they don't even believe the evidence. He says the Bible should be authoritative. It is. It has authority over all those who adhere to its teaching; and those who do not will be judged by the word of God in the end. But like most things in life, be it law, government, police, philosophy, morals, etc, it is up to the individual to let it be an authority in his life; the same is true of religious texts. So disagree that in order for the Bible to be the word of God it has to be accepted as an authority by all people. The number of people who believe it is God's word doesn't prove rather its from God or not. There were no scrolls put in the ark by Moses; I challenge Pro to tell us what proof his source has for that. Just because his source claims this doesn't make it true. The Bible says that the Ten Commandments on stone were put in the ark, not scrolls. The OT, which predates the 2011 source Pro cited, says that the only thing in the ark was the Ten Commandments. (1 Kings 8:9, 21; Exo 34:27-28) As for the great care that went into preserving the original reading, the fact is that while there were good rules to help safeguard against corruption, these rule were often broken by those in charge of following them. In 134 places the Jewish Sopherim altered the original Hebrew text from YHWH to 'Adho•nai′, The Massorah, by C. D. Ginsburg, Ktav Publishing House, New York, 1975 reprint Vol. IV, p. 28, ï¿½ 115, says: "We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonaī in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS. and early editions read the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain? The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonaī as if it were written אדני ['Adho•nai′] instead of יהוה [YHWH]. Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbiden to pronounce. " So much for preserving every last letter in original form, huh? The fact is that we do have enough MSS to compare to delineate quite closely what the originals said, but it would be an exaggeration to say we have it exactly the way it was in its original form. I know that God can't lie because it is not in his nature, and this God doesn't have to rely on the Bible to vindicate that truth because he has been communication with man even before there was a Bible. Also, where I'm sure that God did reveal prophecy to his servants, they are accurate and always come true, just like the one in Ezekiel Pro mentioned. It was fulfilled to the letter. Nebuchadnezzar was the first of the nations to come against Tyre, then the other nations conquered her. Pro argues that "trash talk" wouldn't come from God because when God says a city would never be rebuilt it would never be rebuilt. This is a groundless objection, but God himself does use trash talk elsewhere in the Bible regarding people who still existed as if they no longer did. (1 Sam 15:8) What's more, the prophets always wrote using the idiomatic expression and hyperbole common in their language, so its no surprise that since "trash talk" was also popular in the ANE that this too was used. In summary, Pro has not shown that for the Bible to be God's word it cannot contain errors. I have shown that errors creeping in over time does not stop it from being God's word.