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

I would Like anyone who wishes to come and to prove through deductive reasoning, that the pure bible described above is not the only valid religious text. To properly have this argument, the person who chooses to argue against must take for granted that there is a god; otherwise this debate will descend into an evolution vs. creationism debate which has been done done repeatedly. Firstly I reject the "Middle Ground" philosophy taught in many colleges and Universities. This Philosophy ascertains that there are many roads to "salvation", and that a person may choose Mary, Allah, Moses or anyone to reach this state the final state that the person strives for. Additional a person may be re-incarnated many times to enter salvation. The Middle Ground Philosphe is completely illogical and impossible. The philosphe tries to find a compromise between all religions and that just can't happen. One cannot at the same time believe that Jesus is your savior, and at the same time believe that he is just a prophet. Or that the blood of a crucified god is the only way to purify your sins, and also that your sins can be purified through good works and many tries. The basic method of the philophe to take out of all religions a mainstream and reject the rest becuase it does not fit the mainstream is illogical. If part of the bible is wrong the whole thing is wrong , the same with the Koran , and the Torah (I believe that is the Jewish Bible.) Because if part of the text is false, then why can't the other part of the text be wrong, how does it have any credibility? The fact is that the philosophy is trying to give all religions some credibility, but they are actually taking away the credibility of all religions...If you buy into it that is. So now our choices are refined, We through granted (for this debate) believe there is a god and in my previous proof reject that all religions are true, so now we now that only one can be true. Buddhism is not the true religion becuase firstly Buddha stated that he has no idea about creation or anything, and the he is just a moral teacher. What happened subsequently of people worshiping him is not even what we wanted. This is something unique to any other religion and is something I must reject. The atheist- Tibetan Buddhist actually came after the religious Buddhist. Buddhism can't decide what they are they have no credibility. Concerning religious Buddhist their text have been shaven many times to comply with scientific evidence. A big example is their teaching that the moon was the center of life and energy. We know that not to be true, and their text have changed because of that. I reject that religion because the creator would not have handed them erroneous text, which they assert. And for the Tibetan Buddhis, they are only concerned with world peace, so shouldn't be treated as a religion, except for the fact that they say there is no god. Because this is not a a debate about if there is a god or not I will just skip them. Hindus where Buddhist derive a lot of their scriptures ascertain, also contain scientifically proven physical errors, that have been corrected through time. This automatically discredits them. And it is impossible to believe in some of their text, if you cannot believe in the whole text. If their book comes from the creater, their WHOLE book comes from the creater, and if only a piece came from the creator, than why have they gone against their religion and invented other pieces. It is inconsistent. Islam preaches about a god who cares about his creation . They also preach that Paradise is only inheritable to Muslims. They then further preach that paradise is only inheritable to those Muslims that Mohammad chooses. And finally that being a Martyr is the only true way to know you are going to paradise. The basic foundation of Islam was conversion through conquest, as Mohammad became their Warrior profit leader. The god of The warrior Mohammad is a bi-polar god, he preaches love and hate, and he preaches salvation and then uncertainty. If you read the Koran you are welcome to debate with more evidence than is available to me and I will gladly match that. The Bible now, that is the only true religious text. The bible proves itself. The common misconcpetion that come from people is that the bible is just one hand craft tool. Many people who criticize the bible have never even read it, so on what grounds are they criticizing it? The easy way to stump to thump those people is the simple fact that the bible is a cannon of sixty six different book written by more than thirty different authors over a period in excess of a thousand years spanning. If you pick 5 different authors who each independently claim they are writing through inspiration of a higher being. You take the text that those people write and you put them together. The odds are incredibly against that even those 5 contemporaries will be even 60% consist with each other. And yet we have more than thirty authors who on the majority have never even heard the mention of the writers that came after them and it is 100% consist with each other. And yes it is consistent, the Bible is the only text where scientific evidence has not absolutely ruled out an area of scripture. However small even Islam has tripped up somewhere with science. The only think science can use against the bible are scientific theories, which are just that, theories -evolution , etc. Instead of going detail by detail here, I invite the debtor to point out an inconsistency of the bible , which people have reportedly "discovered" many. The fact is there aren't any inconsistencies, people just want really hard for the bible to be inconsistent becuase it is the last remaining book that cannot be absolutely proven to be erroneous, it is the last template of hope and in my belief it will always be. The inconsistencies are all inductive, people wanting to prove the conclusion that the bible is farced, and using all the logic and evidence they can to support that; rather then deductive reasoning, people studying the bible using evidence and clear logic to determine whether it is true or not. Those people have scored a few reported victories becuase of lack of historical information available leaving whats there to be in question and unprotected against its attacker. But nothing is concrete against. On the contrary throughout history the seeming contradictions becuase of lack of historical evidence have always come up in favor of Christianity, when that evidence is finally gathered. One great example is the story of Jesus healing the Blind man. Mark recounts that Jesus was healed the blind man as he was about a half mile away from the city of Jerricho. Mathew recorded in his the biblical book that bears his name, that Jesus healed the bland man about a half mile before he coming into the city of Jericho. Obviosly and logically Jesus could not have been leaving and also entering Jericho at the same time. For a long time this minute thing has been hailed an inconsistency. Until German Archaeologist Carl Watzinger and Ernest Sellin conducted series of excavations were conducted from 1907-1909 and again in 1911. They discovered that there were actually two Jericho during Jesus's time. During Jesus's time Rome occupied Israeli land. And the traditional Jewish city of Jericho was standing, when the empire build another Roman Jericho's about a mile from the original Jericho. Thus it is historically proven that during Jesus's time there were two Jericho's parallel to each other, and Jesus healed the man in between the two Jericho's. I make some bold assertations here but I invite anybody to refute them.