The Bible is 100% Accurate

Again, your argument made for interesting reading. Let's clear some things up before I refute your argument. The phrases "I cannot really argue against the points you made" and " you don't have sufficient evidence to prove it" are two separate statements. However I will admit that I didn't word them as clearly as I could. Please allow me to rephrase: I could try to argue against the points you made, but I choose not to because I feel that the evidence I could present would be insufficient to conclusively disprove your argument, just as the evidence you have presented is insufficient to conclusively prove it. Also, don't try to claim my inability to disprove, discredit, or invalidate a claim you have made as evidence of it's truth. That is akin to shifting the burden of proof. Oh, and please don't tell me to be honest, when you are copying and pasting your arguments from other sources, and claiming them as your own. Because you have addressed so many of my points in one round, I will rebut them in segments. SCIENTIFIC ERRORS Your argument in support of the accuracy of referring to rabbits as cud chewers is essentially that it was translated wrong. This doesn't support the accuracy of the bible, but rather raises more questions about it's inaccuracy. Why, if the correct translation is completely different, is it translated this way? Wasn't god 'divinely inspiring' the translations, just as he supposedly 'divinely inspired' the original writers? If not, then how can you claim the accuracy of the translation you are using? If so, then why did god inspire such a confusing translation? DEATH OF JUDAS Ok, so that is what Matthew 27:3-5 says, so what about Acts 1:18? "Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." Now, I'd be interested to hear how you rationalize such vastly contradictory accounts. IS A BAT A BIRD? I'm somewhat puzzled as to how this ended up being addressed at such an odd juncture in your argument, as it came under scientific errors, but oh well, I will answer anyway. I didn't say that the bible said a bat is not a bird, the bible says a bat IS a bird, however it ISN'T a bird, but rather a flying mammal. HOW MANY TIMES DID THE COCK CROW? Although logically possible, I would consider it a bit of a stretch that anyone would describe a cock crowing twice in a row as a cock crowing a second time. PLURALIZATION OF GOD Then if god is referred to in plural, he is in fact gods and you are a polytheist, and cannot claim the existence of a 'one true god'.... I would be interested to know where you are getting all of these refutations (because they are clearly plagiarized). Whoever you are getting them from seems to be grasping at straws. Plurals exist, in any language, to describe more than one of something. You either worship a single god (Eloah) or a pantheon (Elohim). ASHERAH/ASTARTE/ASTAROTH This is just a sidenote, and has no bearing on the topic per se, but you brought it up, so I thought I ought to point this out to you: Gods and goddesses such as Asherah, Baal, Ba'al az-Zubab, and the cultures that worshipped them, were destroyed for purely political (rather than spiritual) reasons. Any culture worshipping a different god was seen as a threat to the up and coming Judaic culture, and the best way to deal with them was to tell the people that these other cultures were worshipping demons, and that god wanted them to be punished for it, and with that they could justify genocide and religious persecution in the minds of the highly superstitious populace. There is no evidence to suggest that, in their original mythologies, these gods and goddesses were viewed the way the Jews viewed them, and there is no evidence to suggest that the genocides that occurred (such as the Canaanite genocide described in Deuteronomy 7). The effort made by religious leaders of the time to wipe out other cultures, and to create an alternative history (wherein they worshipped demons and practiced violent and atrocious rituals) was no different from what the Nazi leaders of Germany tried to do to the Jews in the mid 20th century. The only difference is that the Biblical genocides have been justified and rationalized by religious leaders so many times over the last two millennia that the faithful never question, nor do they fail to inform the unfaithful when the subject is mentioned, that such actions need to be looked at in context. Alright, to sum up my argument: This debate was essentially an opportunity to you to provide evidence to justify your claim that the bible is 100% accurate. You provided rather questionable (in my opinion) evidence, much of which seemed to hinge on an argument of mistranslation, which actually proves my position to a certain degree, as it raises questions of accuracy pertaining to translation (rather than the already mentioned questions pertaining to scientific errors, and contradictory accounts of events).