The Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God

Oh, so this is going to be on the easier side? See, I thought you were going to go the route that I had to prove the Bible different from other religious texts. If we are starting it out that the Bible is the word of God, and then going from there, then that makes things much easier for me. Unfortunately, I can't really add much upon refuting because of the lengthy post you provided, but I digress. I will do my best to conserve space (there is very few characters for this debate too, unfortunately). Literal does not mean specifically what you claim. It can also mean what I am stating: "1. Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words. 2. Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation. 3. Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind. 4. Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation. 5. Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words."(1). Therefore, it does not have to be word for word, as long as it keeps the same meaning (with definition #1). Moreover, lets go to inerrant: "1. Incapable of erring; infallible. 2. Containing no errors. "(2). So as long as the Bible sticks to it's original meaning, and has no errors, it is the literal and inerrant word of God. As for literal meaning non-metaphorical, that isn't it's only meaning. I have cited the definition above and quoted from it to disprove your accusation. I will now go and explain the Biblical things that bluesteel has mentioned. (1) You forget about something when talking about Genesis to Kings. There is a Bible quote you should keep in mind: "2 Peter 3:8 King James Version (KJV) 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."(3) Therefore, it is almost impossible to accurately figure out if in Genesis it is 7,000 years that pass, or if it is only 7 days. Moreover, what you cited is only theory, and not fact. 2) Okay, first of all, you shouldn't treat a theory as a fact. If you want to get into an evolution debate, that is fine. Since you quoted a source pro-evolution, I would like to ask a question, "Has it ever been witnessed?" If it has never been witnessed or can never be reasonably applied, it is not scientific whatsoever (4). Also, if you can claim it's scientific theory, then I'd request you look up heliocentrism (5) or even geocentrism (6). They were scientific theories that we know now are false. Lastly, I will request you check out link (7) and link (8). Link (7) contains an experiment that proved evolution false, and link (8) completely debunks evolution entirely (if you are curious as to why, just ask in the comment section to save space and I'll send you the information). Also, go to link (9) which quotes scientists stating how humans have become dumber and weaker over time. That is the opposite of what evolution and natural selection is supposed to do. I would ask you do not turn this into an evolution debate, because we are debating on facts and not theories. 3) I'd like to quote from your own resource, "...such as that Matthew's account follows the lineage of Joseph, while Luke's follows the lineage of Mary." 4) Due to lack of characters, I am going to be lazy with this one and just state that because it hasn't been discovered or proven yet, does not mean it doesn't exist. We can get more detailed into this if you really want to though. 5) Alright so these each have a number, so I'm going to number my answers to each as well. #1 - I read the part in the link that states this but there is no evidence. Can you supply a link that proves this instead of a link that just states it as true? #2 - This is interesting. it claims this again. I just ask, where is the proof? It's claiming all these things, but can I see the evidence or no? #3 - Same as above. #4 - Same as above. At least I have cited the archaeological site that has been verified to prove what has happened in the Old Testament. Can you at least prove what is claimed there? It's just a bunch of claims with no evidence. Can you cite the evidence please? 6) Are you sure it was only caused by rain? Pretty sure the Bible says the Heaven's opened up and water came to the earth. Also, if you read Genesis, Heavens can mean space (since there is no word for Heaven in Hebrew). For all we know, God could of just created water and brought it to earth through space. It is possible, not necessarily by rain. If you want to further debate on this, that's fine. I'm just running out of characters. 7) I can easily disprove this. However, this is irrelevant to the debate. The debate is if the Bible is the word of God. This is not an Atheism versus Christianity debate. 8) The flaw in your logic is putting a word to God that is not stated. It just says he is righteous and holy in all that he does. Can you prove that his works were not righteous? No, because I can easily just say that your opinion is subjective. 9) This is your best point. We can get into a huge discussion on this, but I am out of characters. I will gladly comment on this on the beginning of my next argument because I have under 100 characters left. Thanks for the debate and God bless you. Resources: (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (3) http://www.biblegateway.com... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org... (6) http://en.wikipedia.org... (7) http://www.pathlights.com... (8) http://9wows.com... (9) http://investmentwatchblog.com...