The Bible is reliable

ReliabilityPro writes, "The intended message [of the Bible] can be true or false, factual or not factual etc. All of these different ways of interpretation provides a basis to make reliable interpretations based on what is understood regarding the intended message."By not having an objective meaning or direct instruction, application, message or version of history, the "intended message" can easily be lost, mistranslated or manipulated. Indeed a reader can subjectively interpret or apply the message however they see fit, regardless of whether or not it is valid. This can totally skew their alleged understanding of the text. That is not reliable; that leaves a lot of room for error. TranslationPro argues that just because something cannot be translated literally, doesn't mean the intended meaning is necessarily lost. A research group in Canada has proven that the Old Testament has been massively mistranslated [1]. Dr. Joel Hoffman notes, "In the original Hebrew, the 10th Commandment prohibits taking, not coveting. The biblical Jubilee year is named for an animal’s horn and has nothing to do with jubilation. The pregnant woman in Isaiah 7:14 is never called a virgin. Psalm 23 opens with an image of God’s might and power, not shepherding. And the romantic Song of Solomon offers a surprisingly modern message. But most people who read the Bible don’t know these things, because extensive translation gaffs conceal the Bible’s original meaning" [2].Dr. Hoffman goes on to explain that the mistakes stem from five flawed translation techniques: etymology, internal structure, cognates, old mistranslations, and misunderstood metaphor [3]. Dr. Hoffman provides additional insight: "Metaphors are particularly difficult to translate, because words have different metaphoric meanings in different cultures. Shepherds in the Bible were symbols of might, ferocity and royalty, whereas now they generally represent peaceful guidance and oversight. So the image of the Lord as shepherd in Psalm 23 originally meant that the Lord was mighty, fierce and royal. The impact was roughly the same as 'the Lord is a man of war.' But in most English-speaking cultures, 'the Lord is my shepherd' conveys a wholly different, and therefore inaccurate, image" [2].Thus, Pro contends that mistranslations can't occur because "the same message can still be conveyed" even if the words are not translated exactly. However that is false. Per Dr. Hoffman's explanations and examples, the entire stories, lessons, images and messages from the Bible can be easily misconstrued based on the cultural interpretation of the text. Pro is incorrect that "the message does not change at all." It does change based on the reader and teacher, which is not very reliable. Other Problems Pro cites some stories from the Bible as fact, i.e. the Creation story of Adam and Eve. However there is not a shred of scientific or historical evidence to validate the creation myth described in the Bible. "The difficulties with the story are insurmountable. The evidence from archaeology, palaeontology, human history, the fossil record, evolutionary biology, geology and physics all show us very clearly that the Earth, the solar system and the rest of the universe was created billions of years ago and not at all in accordance with the events listed in Genesis. Not only that, but there are two Genesis creation stories - one at Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 and another in Genesis 2:4-25. Although they are similar to each other in scale, they manage to contradict each other in nearly all of their details. Some have attempted to extend what is meant by 'a day' in the story to mean 1,000 years or even a billion years in order to harmonize the Genesis account with scientific evidence, but even then the stories still contradict reality in the sequence of events they describe and in the logic they use" [4]. My opponent also mentions how some people could live to be 900 years old "before the fall of man" which again has not a shred of logical or scientific evidence to back it up. Of course, faith based claims have no credibility; otherwise I can state my beliefs rooted in faith and expect Pro to accept them as fact. He most likely will not, and similarly, I do not accept these bare assertions as fact. There is no proof for any of them. You cannot use the Bible to prove that Biblical content is valid; that is fallacious circular reasoning. As such, we have no reason to accept the supernatural claims made in the Bible.My Additional ContentionsThe Bible is a collection of manuscripts compiled by humans, not God. "There is no single, agreed-upon, authoritative Bible; rather, different sects of Christianity consider a wide variety of books to be Biblical canon. Thus, we (and I) err when we speak of 'the' Bible, singular. In reality, we are talking about various compilations assembled and debated by ordinary people" [5].For almost 1,500 years, the New Testament manuscripts were copied by hand. It contains both mistakes and intentional changes; there are multiple manuscript versions. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of the widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself are the results of both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes [6]. Therefore, the Bible is not reliable so much as convenient or intentionally manipulative. Consider the example of Mark 16. “The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20. In other words, historians now believe that everything after Mark 16:8 is a forgery" [7]. It was literally fabricated without evidence. Development of the New Testament canon is arbitrary. "When Athanasius was declaring various NT books to be canonical, he bore the same relationship to the events described therein as you and I do to, say, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. If there were 200 books about that Act, would you feel qualified to decide which ones were fact and which ones were fiction? I sure wouldn’t. What you have on your bookshelf labeled 'the Bible' is the product of debate and vote over three and a half centuries — some of which continues to this very day" [5]. The human fallible influence and control over this Book is undeniable. [1] http://ireport.cnn.com...[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.vexen.co.uk...[5] https://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com...[6] https://www.amazon.com...[7] https://www.biblegateway.com...