The Bible Contains Inaccuracies

I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate round, just as much as I hope the PRO has. I would like to thank the PRO for his decency in this debate round as well as for inviting me. So far in this debate the only thing I have discovered is that the KJV is not translated as well as I had presupposed. Regardless, the bible itself, in its original language, is totally accurate. I believe that the KJV does a good job in translating it into the English language. 1) Jesus is the son of God and therefore doesn't have to be born in the line of man to be become a king. When it says that Jesus will inherit the kingdom, he is referring to heavenly kingdom, which he is direct line for. John 18:36, "Jesus replied, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my servants would fight to prevent me being handed over to the Jewish authorities. But now my kingdom is not from here." Your whole argument is invalid, because you have stated it out of context to the whole of scripture. My argument stands. 2) You are trying to bring up an "new argument," so I guess that means I have proved the your last argument as invalid. However, this argument is off topic. We are checking the consistency of the Bible against itself. Not whether or not Biblical records are accurate with others. I believe that your records are inaccurate, just as you believe mine are. I would be happy to entertain you to a specific debate on whose dating system is accurate, but for now my argument stands. 3) The Hebrew translation for the word father-in-law has more than one meaning. The Hebrew word translates as such, http://translation.babylon.com...... Its about as ambiguous as the word good. The meaning could be pragmatic or ethical.(it looks good/ it is good to give to the poor.) Just because something does not make sense in the English language doesn't mean that it, in its actual translation, is inaccurate. If your are going to read the Bible you must pay attention to detail and always check the Hebrew meanings. My argument remains. 4) If you excuse the particulars, the fall will be fatal. Again you are reading out of context. I think I demonstrated it best with my last example. The son will not bear the iniquity of the father. The son will bear the iniquity of the father. When in actuality; The son will not bear the iniquity of the father, if he repents.("righteousness, will be upon the righteous") The son will bear the iniquity of the father, if he does not repent. Reading and interpreting things out of context is a nasty business. If you are going to make arguments against the Bibles consistency then you should make sure you know what the verse says. The way in which you are reading it is like reading just the chapter titles of a book. You actually don't know how the stories turning out and don't understand the plot or characters. Likewise you don't understand the particulars of what I am referring to, not because you cant see them, but that you are unwilling to look. My argument stands. 5) You said we are measuring a fixed point in time. How do we measure a fixed point in time? Dates man! Dates! I still don't think you understand what I am getting at. It is to my perception that you have thrown a third analysis of time into the mix.(current dating methods.) You need to forget the current dating methods because its just confusing, and instead extrapolate the two dating systems I made reference to. If you do that you will see that at the time of the split and according to the two dating systems, both dates are mathematically consistent. My counter argument stands. 6) If your going to be ignorant and read everything out of context then that is up to you. You said that we should analyze the Bible for what it actually says. That is what I'm doing. You are only analyzing the Bible for what SOME of it says. What you say and do is a contradiction in and of itself. Let me illustrate again. Good works should be seen. Good works shouldn't be seen. This is how you have interpreted SOME of the truth. When in actuality. Good works should be seen for the glory of God. Good work should not be seen for the glory of man. Translates logically to, Good works should be seen for the glory of God. Good works should not be seen for the not glory of God. Delete the two negatives and what do you get? These two statements are totally equal. If you still don't get it then review the inference I made in my last argument. Anyone can read things out of context, but it takes a keen eye, and a willing heart to discover the truth and read the Bible as it was meant to be read.(in context) My point stands. 7) In Samuel it says, "...Some of the mighty men that David had:(where he is from) ... ADINO...: who slew 800 at one time." In Chronicles it says, "... Some of the mighty men which David had:(again where he is from)... JOSHOBEAM...: who slew 300 at one time." These are two different men. In fact David had many chiefs, all at different times. Many died in battle and so runner up would replace him. There is no problem with the amount that he killed(because they were two different men) and there is no problem with who the chiefs are, so, therefore the bible remains accurate. Conclusion I think its quite funny that the Iliad has under ten original manuscripts and is never tested for consistency. Yet the Bible has 24,000 original manuscripts all of which correspond exactly, and everyone goes nuts. The reason there are so many is because the Jewish priests would copy the original accounts of Moses, Abraham, etc. to a point. If they made one little mark that was off by any means they would do away with the scroll. They took there work very seriously. I know, even the church cant agree on what is the truth, but I know and understand that the Bible is truth both literally and metaphorically, and I therefore do not conform to any denomination, but instead I cling to the holy word of God as it is truth in the midst of a world full of lies. The PRO says that some of his argument are invalid do to interpretation. Regardless he has continually read them out of context. He has tried to destroy the "literalness" of the Bible. He also, stated that he has shown what the Bible exactly says. If he had, then he wouldn't have left out the other half of the verses which put things into context and made light of the truth. He is not here to discover the truth, but rather is present to exploit it in a manner that disproves the Bible. A scientist looks at the facts, but a good one looks at all of the evidence. I personally don't read Hebrew, but that's why I consulted someone who can. I studied Latin for 5 years, and I will tell you that one word can have several meanings, which is why there are so many translations. However, if we are to analyze the truth, we must be open minded and look at all of the possible meanings, that we might better understand Gods word for what He intended. I don't know why they translated father-in-law as such, but it is what it is. The day has come where man is exchanging truth for lies that feed his own passions and preserve his lifestyle. As I have proven, the Bible is totally consistent, regardless of whether a person takes it literally or not. The Bible is Gods picture of reality. Truth is the reality of God, because it is not distorted by lies. Gods reality is totally, absolutely, positively, consistent. If we are to go about life we must always seek the truth. I have proven my opponent wrong time and time again. The day in which we find ourselves is full of lies. It is our job to search out Gods reality. The way is clear and the road is narrow. It is up to us to walk down it. I have proven and demonstrated in this debate that the Bible is absolutely/completely consistent. "I believe in Christianity as I believe in the sun rise; not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -C.S Lewis.