The Bible is not the word of God

My opponent presents two alleged scientific contradictions that supposedly prove that the Bible is scientifically inaccurate. However, my opponent is incorrect in proving that these invalidate the Bible as the Word of God. Contention 1) The Book of Genesis presents both light and the Earth being created prior to the Sun. He claims that "a basic knowledge of Astronomy teaches us that the Earth comes from it's star, our sun. This is irrefutable. " However, my opponent's point is one large exercise in begging the question. Begging the question happens when one asserts a contention, with no proof to support it. Since there is no potential contradiction between light coming prior to the Sun (there are many light sources besides our star), I shall focus on why my opponent's contention does not stand philosophically. There are two parts to my response. 1) The Bible is not speaking scientifically My opponent asks "Does an all knowing Creator make such basic scientific mistakes in a book that is supposed to be divinely revealed, or is this the fable of a superstitious scholar? " However, he has not proven that this passage is to be read as a literal scientific account. Many Christian scholars would argue that Genesis 1 and 2 are metaphorical accounts of creation. Particularly they point to the fact that days 1 through 3 are the creation of "habitats" and days 4 through 6 represent the filling of those habitats. Furthermore there are poetic elements in the text that lend to a symbolic reading. Simply put, the Bible cannot be presenting a scientific mistake if it is not making a scientific statement. Is the author of Song of Songs making a scientific mistake when he describes his lover as though her eyes were doves or her breasts were fawns? Of course not, he was using metaphoric language to describe her. Furthermore, in order for this point to stand, my opponent would have to prove that this is the only possible reading. He has not done so. 2) My opponent has done nothing whatsoever to prove that this astronomic data is correct. In fact there have been many theories to explain the formation of our solar system. My opponent not only has to prove that the predominant theory currently is as he describes, but he has to prove that this will not be overturned. In fact, several dominant scientific theories that have been understood as proven fact are in question at this point. One such theory is the theory of the speed of light itself. A firm in Europe recently observed a particle moving faster than the speed of light. [1] One scientist quoted in the article says "We'd be looking at a whole new set of rules" for how the universe works. " My opponent has no way of knowing if the scientific datum that he is presenting will not be overturned. I am not saying that it will be, I simply am saying that we cannot know it will not be. Prior to the recent discovery (which I'll admit, still needs to be confirmed by an independent source), had the Bible said "He hurled the stone faster than light. " We would claim that it contradicted the laws of physics. .. today we would have to rethink that assertion. There is no way to know that this is not the case with the order of accretion of the Solar System. Contention 2) The Noah Account is impossible My opponent again begs the question. Allow me to demonstrate. If the Bible is the Word of God, it presupposes a supernatural God capable of anything. This supernatural God could create a context in which 30 million species could be loaded into the ark. He could also allow for them to be loaded in rapid time, and to preserve polar bears or penguins to survive in the subtropics. Furthermore, he would be able to create the water required to cover the earth, as well as remove the traces that that might leave (nevermind the fact that my opponent has not given any support for these assertions). However, my opponent simply presupposes a Godless system. Essentially he says "The Bible is not the Word of God because God doesn't exist. " However, he has not proven that. The very fact that we are talking about the Bible as potentially the Word of God, presupposes that the way that the Bible describes God is potentially true. If indeed the Bible is true, then the problems that my opponent proposes are not problems (because the omnipotent God could accomplish all the things he described. ) My opponent roots his entire argument in the fact that the Bible presents situations that defy the laws of Nature/Physics. .. however, that very Bible also presents a God who can break or bend the Laws of Nature/Physics as He wishes. [1]. http://www.washingtonpost.com...