The god of the bible does not exist

Let’s start by making one thing very clear; sticking to the rules that your opponent laid out in their opening statement cannot be dismissed as a “miserable excuse”. If backwardseden doesn’t like the way I neatly avoided some of his arguments then maybe he should have put some more thought into coming up with his original challenge! Evidence outside of the Bible Backwardseden objects to the way I used Biblical verses to prove God’s existence. May I remind Backwardseden that it was he who stipulated that his opponent must argue their case using “Chapters and verses only please from either the KJV, NIV, NLT. ” (rule 4) It’s common practice for the challenger to limit the scope of a debate, Particularly on a topic as broad as this one. Backwardseden chose, For arguments sake, To accept the Bibile as evidence (“I did accept your bible as evidence”). I’m happy to approach this topic from a Biblical consistency angle, However please don’t complain because I’ve gone down the path you led me down. Translations Next, Backwardseden brings up the issue of translations (although if you want to be pedantic, Using the Bishop’s Bible falls foul of rule 4, As it was clearly stated that only the KJV, NIV and NLT translations were permitted in this debate! ). Modern translations of the Bible go through the same rigorous process of texual criticism as any other text from antiquity. For example, The earliest surviving copy of Pliny’s work dates to 750yrs after it was written, Plato 1200 years and Aristotle 1400 years yet nobody would suggest that the authors of these works never existed simply because we don’t have the original copies and they didn’t write in modern English (reference: https://carm. Org/manuscript-evidence). The examples you give are hardly so garbled that the original message has been lost (for example, Just because KJV & NLT uses the word ‘wise’ whilst ‘prudent’ is found in the NIV doesn’t mean that the original message has been lost as prudent and wise pretty much mean the same thing) Was Jesus a false prophet? Backwardseden then argues that Jesus was a false prophet because he didn’t observe the Sabbath rules (I notice that these are all completely new arguments, Presumably because Baclwardseden has little to offer in response to anything I wrote in my previous rounds) If you take another look at Matthew 12 you’ll notice that Jesus didn’t straightforwardly work on the Sabbath but ate some grain. Jesus then uses scripture to explain to the Pharisees why he isn’t breaking the Old Testament laws. Backwardseden needs to explain why they side with the Pharisees in this story and disagree with Jesus’ explanation? On Youtube Link spamming Backwardseden provides me with a long list of Youtube vidoes and declares “If you do not watch and take in/ comprehend these videos it means you are unwilling to accept evidence which means you are unwilling to debate” Let’s firstly add up the total length of all these videos: in first post: 40 minutes… 12 minutes…7…14…13…10…10…30=124 minutes or just over 2 hours. Expecting your opponent to watch two hours of videos is unfair because: When somebody accepts your challenge they are agreeing to read and consider all your arguments, Take the time to respond and do everything they can to make it a good debate. They are not agreeing to spend endless hours watching low quality fundamentalist atheist Youtube vidoes. As Backwardseden has acknowledged, The word count prevents you from doing a point by point response to each video and even if I were to do so I’m pretty sure Backwardseden would just tell me to educate myself by spending another couple of hours on Youtube. This is trying to win the debate through quantity of arguments than quality. If I were to provide Backwardseden with a long list of Christian apologetic podcasts he wouldn’t diligently sit through and watch them all. It’s poor conduct to expect something of your opponent that you wouldn’t expect of yourself. It breaks rule 4 (only Bible verse, Not Yotube links! ) Finally I’d finally like to remind Backwardseden that the reason I brought up the trinity was in response to one of his arguments – not as a proof for God. I’ve already responded to his 1 Timothy 2 concern – he needs to explain how the burning bush was playing the role of a mediator. Backwardseden's comment of Judaism is a poor one – the existence of a sequel doesn’t make everything in the original book false. Everything else in Backwardseden’s post is just a massive rant, Often repeating points he’s already made. In Backwardseden’s closing round he will need to look back at his original rules and explain how he thinks his main argument adheres to them.