The Bible is reliable

Can you prove the Bible was not translated correctly? Proof in this case is providing two documents that claim the same origin for comparison. Citations that contradict what the believers held to be true is not proof. I can differ from a Hindu but the Hindu is not wrong just because I say so. The whole New Testament is quoted in the works of the Church Fathers almost in its entirety. Comparing the Church Fathers with the Bibles we have today makes it is easy to verify whether it was correctly translated or not. In this case you are wrong, pointing out translation difficulties does not mean we cannot have the correct translation. The translators knew the languages they translated from so they were able to find suitable substitutes to convey the same meaning, just like we do today. "His only response was that the "church fathers" allegedly had the skill to interpret the original texts; however, there is no proof of this and thus we have no reason to accept it." You are wrong again, there is lots of proof, the works of the Church Fathers are available today in its entirety and therefore we can compare the texts. " Just because they said they could interpret it 100% correctly doesn't mean that they could and actually did. Pro believes this based on faith, not proof." I don't need faith to compare a Bible, I can read and compare the quoted texts with the Bibles today and see it is the same. Someone can interpret something 100% and that could mean that it was not actually done?? You need a lot more faith than me to believe a statement like that. Nonetheless, this doesn't address my argument from last round." I did address your argument. Let me also copy and paste the points I made. "Again, is it even possible to do a correct translation then? It seems it can NEVER be done. Here is the fallacy, he uses the texts with all these faults and possibility of faults as support for his interpretation!!!!". "Mis-translation (which will include metaphors etc etc - my comment) can occur in a particular text (word added), but it is also possible that no mis-translation occurred in another text containing the same material. Something you apparently do not consider." So by comparing the text it is possible to make sense of it all. You do realize that the English language also contains metaphors, figurative language, euphemisms etc right? Is it possible to interpret and translate the English language correctly? I gave an example from 1611 and 2016 by comparing verses from the same English Bible that have exactly the same meaning even thou it is more than 400 years apart.. Instead of refuting this you just carry on repeating the same thing, claiming I did not address it when the examples given clearly proves you and Hoffman are wrong. I even gave an example of a translation between my first language and English that shows that the message can be interpreted correctly even if the word order is not 100% correct according to proper English usage. "This goes on to prove MY point that the Bible is not reliable because of how much it has been completely manipulated by various people through the ages." This does not prove your point at all. Please provide the "originals" that you quote to support your points, after all, you did quote a man who based his theory on the "originals" (which have not been seen by anyone alive today). Do you even know what the Kabbalah is? Do you know what the Gnostic's really believed? If you did, you would not make such statements. "Even Biblical scholars cannot be trusted or assumed to have all of the "correct" information given the extremely shaky history of these documents." Please tell me which shaky documents you are referring too. Who are the Scholars that cannot be trusted? Answer these two questions and I will deal with your statement. Jews have always believed the earth was round, based on the Bible. If I remember correctly , this was pointed out by a Jewish Rabbi to Richard Dawkins when he made the same mistake during a interview for a documentary Dawkins was making. "insurmountable proof of evolution (to some degree)????" Insurmountable but to some degree??? Evolution is said to have started with the Big bang. Where is your evidence for the Big bang, and I mean scientific evidence that was confirmed using the scientific method? If you demand scientific evidence then also provide it please. You should know the BB cannot be proven scientifically. Some try to separate the BB from evolution but if that is the case then evolution is adaptation. Evolution itself cannot prove or disprove God, it is the origins of evolution that questions whether God caused it. Unless you accept the BB as part of evolution, you cannot say evolution disproves God. Since there is "insurmountable" unquestionable proof, you should be able to give loads for how it all started right? Please feel free to waste your characters since you used evolution to ridicule the Bible. "Yet liberal theologians believe that the gospels were written during the period 70 to 100 CE by anonymous writers who had only second-hand or third-hand knowledge about Jesus, and who incorporated oral material that had materialized after Jesus' death" [2]." Polycarp states the Gospels were written by Matthew, Luke, Mark and John - something the Liberals deny. Polycarp was a disciple of John so all the Gospels were written before 90AD. A tidbit on reliability: Didn't you mention earlier no scholars can be trusted? Yet you quote the Liberals and Bart Erhman as support for what you believe? "But mainline and liberal theologians have long accepted the 'Documentary Hypothesis,'.." Quoting unreliable scholars again? Yes that's all it is, a HYPOTHESIS (a mere assumption or guess - http://www.dictionary.com...). Secular and and Jewish sources state the Law was written by Moses more that 2000 years ago. See the The Letter Of Aristeas and Josephus. As for your Bible hypothesis...Textus Receptus was the name given because it "was the text received by all" (Protestants). As a response to all your other statements and limited space here, I would like to point out that so far you failed to address the following points I mentioned: 1. The Bible says there is a nation called Israel. That is obviously a literal reference and intended to be interpreted literally. Is this false because it is literally interpreted as you claim? Obviously not. 2. The New Testament was not translated from Greek, it WAS written in Greek. 3. Do you really think a supernatural being with powers beyond human capabilities would need a man made sword? 4. The rest of the examples is about how woman and slaves were treated and said to be treated... This is going on today, it is not a MYTH. 5. Even if the Bible contains, what you might consider as far-fetched stories, that does not mean that the story was not accurately transmitted. 6. Hoffman should publish the "original text" from which he got the "original Hebrew". There are no exiting originals anywhere to be found today. 7. You make the mistake here because the New Testament which was written by mostly Hebrews who understood Hebrew and who had access to older manuscripts than we had, translated the word "virgin" in the Greek in the NT. 8. The Hebrew scribes used a complicated method of copying. They counted the letters in each line, each paragraph and then also counted the total of the words. (the method allows extremely accurate translation). 10. Genesis 1 is not the creation of Adam and Eve. Genesis 2 gives you the time Adam was created, and that was before the 5th day. 11. Please give me a scientific exact number total that will not "be" contradicted by another scientist (of how long humans and dinosaurs lived). The lack of fossils suggest a very long life span that contradicts other Scientists who say the first humans and animals lived less than 50 years. Some say lifespans was 300 years +. Seems Adam could have been 900 years old according to some scientists.