The Bible contains errors and contradictions, and it can therefore not be the word of God

Thanks for the debate! - - - Pro claims that I have failed to understand that the inconsistencies of the Bible make it inauthentic. On the other hand, Pro has failed to realize that just because the Bible is the "word of God" does NOT necessarily mean that it is the WORD OF GOD. Instead, being referred to as the word of God means that it's a literary device to understanding the Christian God. In other words, if I were to write a book called "The Words of My Mother," most people would logically assume that the book contains some specific quotes from her, but also some interpretation and little addendum from me. So, just because the Bible has been mistranslated does NOT mean that the Bible doesn't get across God's message or what people *thought* God's message was. Remember that I'm not defending the Bible has a science or history book; I'm merely saying that it can be used as a religious text. Moving on, Pro first notes that it is impossible for Jesus to be the son of God. First of all, as Pro pointed out, Jesus never claimed to be God's son. He refers to God as "Father" the same way all people of the time (and today) refer to God as their Father. The idea of the trinity was actually added to the Bible later on after Jesus' death. So, Pro cannot use this so-called contradiction against Jesus, because Jesus never said that he was God. Further, Pro cites Luke 3:23-38 as proof that Jesus was not the only son of God. That Bible passage merely explains the lineage of Jesus; i.e. Jesus the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi... etc. So, Pro's passage doesn't claim that God had many sons, but merely explains who was the son of whom. Nowhere does this contradict anything, making this a moot point. Pro continues to further press this issue when he claims, "Is it irrelevant that Jesus himself says that God is greater than him? Jesus being God is - according to the Christians - a lesson of the Bible, then how come Jesus never said that he was God, and that we should worship him? In fact, he said that God is greater than him. This plays a huge role. If those verses are mistranslated, then the whole Bible is mistranslated, and does not teach what the original did. That is logical." ... Pro is wrong. This is a blatant example of the mistranslation I was talking about. The term "son of God" is used in two main ways in the Old Testament. Neither way denotes any physical relation to God. Rather, the references deal with those who are under divine obedience to the call of God. It is used of Israel as a nation through the Exodus. Hosea 11:1 says, "When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son."1 It is also used in reference to angels. Job 1:6 says, "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them." Also, in Job 38:7 it says, "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." These are in reference to angels who are created beings and in no way implies literal dependency from God. The Term "Son of God" occurs 47 times in the King James New Testament. In reference to Jesus, it is a title as the heavenly, eternal Son who is equal to God the Father (John 5:18-24). It is Jesus who fully reveals the Father (Matt. 11:27). He is the exact representation of the Father (Heb. 1:1-3), He possesses all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18), and Jesus had glory with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5). [1] Next Pro asks, "If the Bible has so many flaws, how can we determine what is a flaw and what is not? How can we determine whether the original Bible told us to believe in two gods, and not one God?" That's a silly question. Christianity is not ONLY a byproduct of the Bible, but is also part of a large oral tradition and passed on religious culture in general. I think it's fair to say that it would have been nearly impossible for Christianity to first be a polytheistic religion that then turned monotheistic. In other words, sure the Bible will be misquoted or certain things lost in translation over time. However, the "big things" - such as whether Christians believe in 1 or 2 gods - is going to remain consistent. Moving on to the rebuttal, Pro claims that the Qur'an has been the same over centuries, and then provides a link to a source... which says no such thing. But! My provided source in the previous round proved that the Qur'an DOES have numerous inconsistencies, meaning that my point simply trumps Pro's false one in this regard (one need only to check our sources and/or do a quick Google search to see who deserves the credit on this one). This makes Pro's point that it's non-sensical to accept the Bible over the Qur'an FALSE. Also, the Quran and the Bible do NOT share the same message. Next Con states, "Those who defend the claims about errors and contradictions, only claim that a word that represents an error, but when it comes to verses and words that are free of errors, the translation is just as it should be. This does not hold water either." LOL why does it not hold water? If someone was reading a paper I wrote and noticed a grammatical error, spelling error or translation error, of course they're going to point it out. Is that enough to make my entire paper invalid? Nope. Why would those defending the Bible point out an error if there isn't one? Finally Pro introduces what he thinks are a bunch of unfulfilled prophecies, which again are nothing but errors of translation and understanding. Not to mention that I've already pointed out though God was supposed to have inspired scripture, that DOESN'T mean that scripture is PERFECT (God and God alone is perfect). Nevertheless, let's address those so-called inconsistencies: 1) We know that the one who reigns over the the house of Jacob [i.e. Israel] is not Jesus. The verses clearly state that Jesus will reign over Israel forever. The prophecy is so wrong that not only isn't Jesus that rules, but his enemies - the Jews. Pro should consider taking a theology course. The Jews are NOT enemies of Jesus, and never were. Jesus was a Jew. And in fact, the HOUSE OF JACOB refers to Jews! Newsflash: All Christians were Jews! Then they were Jews who followed Jesus, which is what the "prophecy" implies. In short, Jacob refers to the Jew when his service of God requires toil, struggle and effort ("servants"), whereas Israel refers to the Jew when his service of God is pleasurable and natural ("children") [2]. 2) "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." Cain was a tiller of the ground (involved with agriculture); this was said to Cain after he committed the first murder, and means that Cain was exiled from his birth family, therefore making him a fugitive and a vagabond. Nowhere in that verse does it ever say that he will FOREVER be these things, again making Pro's point a moot one. 3) "The verse says that no one will sit on David's throne after Jehoiakim. In the next verse, it says that Jehoiakim's son [Jehoiachin] reigned in his stead." Another mistake. Both King Jehoiakim and his son King Jehoiachin were under a curse from God that their seed would not sit on the throne of David. "None to sit upon the throne of David" in the Old Testament points to the cursed Adamic race of mankind as a whole, who cannot sit on the throne with Jesus in eternity, unless they overcome as Jesus overcame, as stated in Revelation 3:21. [3] Pro has failed to point out any inconsistencies that I could not counter. Sources: [1] http://www.carm.org... [2] http://www.chabad.org... [3] http://www.kimmillerconcernedchristians.com...