The Words in the Bible are Divine

I will begin my conclusion with an analogy. Imagine I were to have a debate with another on the topic of "Saska is a liar". If I was to enter that debate and state, I will argue this claim on the premise that everything I say is the truth. Now my argument is: "I have never lied." My opponent might suggest that my statement in itself may be a lie, but I can contend that under the premise that everything I say is true. If you understand why the above example is an absurd way to formulate a debate, then you should undoubtedly understand why my opponent has failed to provide any ample evidence of the divinity in the bible. He entered this debate claiming that "I believe that all of the words of the Bible are the infallible words of a living God" and his arguments show that the belief in the infallibility of the bible is required in order to prove the words to be divine. The bible is divine because the bible says it is divine and since it is divine, everything it says is divine. That logic is so circular that I get dizzy just reading it. Making claims like "there are no contradictions in the Bible" and "[t]he Bible is constantly right about history" shows a complete ignorance to the issues that anyone who reads the bible can plainly see. Claiming that all contradictions are merely a lack of understanding by the reader supports my claim that human intervention and interpretation strips all divinity out of the words. There has been no guidance by God as to how to interpret the words, so there are constant battles (both verbal and violently physical) over different interpretations of the words written in this book. The words are at the mercy of the individual reading them, so unless the reader of the book is also divine, I see no way that a fallible human being is capable of sifting through the countless possible interpretations of the words in order to find the intended, divine meaning. My opponent has challenged a statement that I made about how I interpreted an act in the bible by stating "the worst argument anyone could possibly make against the Bible is an "I think" argument," yet his entire argument for the bible hinges on what he thinks about the words in the book. Why am I so wrong to interpret God"s command as a command of murder, but yet he is so correct in "thinking" the opposite? The answer to this question is that neither of us is necessarily right or wrong, it is a difference of opinion. The fact that the bible is so open to differing opinions shows once again how it is not divine; it is merely the product of fallible human manipulation. The claim made regarding the words of the bible now being "God-breathed". As I stated earlier, my opponent made the claim that "I believe that all of the words of the Bible are the infallible words of a living God." He now claims that "Different translations of the Bible may use slightly different wordings for the same passage, but the exact wording is not as important as the meaning of the words." His argument has changed from his original position, which shows that I am making some progress in proving my point. No longer are all of the words of the bible the infallible words of a living God, but some of them are. Again, as I stated before, if we are basing this on meaning of the words alone, the divinity is surely stripped away because 1000 different people can find 1000 different meanings to one sentence and there is no divine, ultimate authority that directs us on how we must interpret those words. Another claim made by my opponent is that people died for the word because no sane man would die for a lie. He gave me the two options of either assuming that the disciples were either insane or that Jesus was the Christ. But he leaves out the third and fourth options. The third would be that they believed Jesus to be the Christ but were incorrect, which has happened with many others who have died for false gods throughout history. Further to this, my opponent claims that "There were no advantages to die." This is entirely false. If they did believe what Jesus said, they had every reason to die. Why would they want to stay on earth when they have the chance ascend into heaven to be with their leader once again? This has been done many times over with cults, where people believe so strongly that they are willing to die in order to reach the next life, which is always assumed to be way better than this one. The fourth option would be that the events concerning the disciples did not happen at all; or at least not the way they were explained in the bible. The fact that my opponent is completely unwilling to allow for the possibility that his book has any error is causing his argument to crumble around him. Anyone who shares his view of the bible going into this debate might still hold to the claim that the bible is divine, but anyone who is capable of stepping back and doing a proper critical analysis of the book, without the presupposition that the book is already infallible, will be able to clearly see why we cannot assume that the words are divine. I would like to thank my opponent for a very interesting debate. I hope the audience enjoyed reading this debate as much as I enjoyed participating in it.