The 66-book bible translated from original language unedited is the only valid religious text.

First, let me be absolutely clear here – I do not, in fact, believe in a personal creator God because I think the problem of evil and the argument from silence refutes this pretty soundly. But, in keeping with the demands of your post, I will assume for the sake of argument that I do. So, let's talk about where we agree. I agree that the claims from various religions are mutually exclusive and this does preclude the middle ground philosophy you mentioned. It clearly cannot be the case that "I [Jesus] am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me" (John 14) and the case that one gains admittance to heaven through Mohammed. This is an excellent point that many liberal religious believers miss. That being said, I do not think your evidence is at all strong enough (or could, even theoretically be strong enough) to warrant the claim that "The 66-book bible translated from original language unedited is the only valid religious text." Let me point out quickly that the burden of proof in this debate is very directly on your shoulders. You either prove that the bible is the only valid religious text or I demonstrate that there is enough doubt to warrant a rejection of this claim. On to my points: first, I'd like to point out that your refutation of other religions is not even close to exhaustive. This web address mentions at least 22 currently existing religions: http://www.adherents.com... and we can assume that in recorded human history there have been countless more. Let's (very) conservatively estimate that 100 religions have existed in human history. If this is the case and if it is the case that I absolutely grant your arguments, you have refuted 2% of them. Sure, refuting them all is an absurd task, but that's why claiming absolute validity to Christianity is absurd. Next, I'd like to point out a claim you made: you "reject that religion [Buddhism] because the creator would not have handed them erroneous text, which they assert". I take this claim to mean that if a text has error, it must be wrong. Here are a few easily found biblical contradictions: 1. Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder. Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor. 2. Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16) James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (Matt. 19:16-21) 3. Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire. Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind. The list could go on and on, but I have other things to say. Next, even if these contradictions did not exist, why would we assume credibility for the Bible? It was written in a pre-scientific, mostly illiterate time period by men who knew less about the world than the average schoolchild today. In fact, the book is just what we'd expect from such men – it's loaded with sexism, racism and superstition when it could, just have easily contained scientific data like a cure for aids or the speed of light which would have made it definitely true. Thus, I reject the premise that a single text must be true (they can all be false) and, failing that, I reject the claim that Christianity is a good candidate for an absolutely true text.