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

It seems to me that your last post addresses two threads of argument: the argument concerning the burden of proof and the argument from biblical contradictions. I want to point out that at the end of my post I introduced a very important, yet unrefuted argument. The argument was that even if it's true that there are no biblical contradictions this does not demonstrate the Bible's veracity. I probably should have made a bigger deal of this point to make it clear that I wanted to pursue it, so you'll have to forgive me if I do this now. I want to start with some historical background on the era surrounding Jesus from one of my favorite authors: Richard Carrier. Carrier discusses a document from the same time period telling the story of Saint Genevieve (URL can be found here: http://tinyurl.com...) "In 520 A.D. an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead. No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened--by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin. Yet do we believe any of it? Not really. And we shouldn't." As David Hume famously pointed out, it is no accident that miracles were reported to occur in a pre-scientific society with little skepticism and no tools to investigate them, but now, when we have such tools, miracles are suddenly lacking. Claims of miracles were common and we correctly dismiss many of them like Saint Genevieve's out of hand. But when it comes to the claims of the Bible we fail to do this. Further, we simply don't have any reason to think that the Bible is literally true. Take the claims of Jesus' miracles. There are no extra-biblical accounts of his works, all we have are recording of the events decades after they are supposed to have occurred. But, even if we had hundreds of eye-witness accounts, this would still not be enough to cash out the claim of Biblical veracity. There are currently thousands of western educated intellectuals who appear to think that their favorite Indian mystic or guru has magic powers. Devotees of Satya sai baba, for example claim that he was born of a virgin, can fly without technology, can read minds, walk on water, raise the dead, etc. Let's remember that this guy isn't the David Koresh of Hinduism, Wikipedia estimates 6 million followers. Now, claims of this guy's magic powers don't even warrant an hour on the discovers channel, but if you place similar claims in the pre-scientific, illiterate context of the first-century Roman Empire, they are suddenly especially credible. Does anyone else see a problem with this? So, with that as my main thrust, I want to discuss some of our other topics. You are, of course, current in your claim that if you demonstrate the Bible as true, then you do not need to specifically demonstrate that the mutually exclusive claims of other religions are false. I was more attempting to demonstrate that if you're attempting to argue that the Bible is more likely to be true (instead of arguing that we know its veracity for a fact) then you have a serious problem. Also, you do a slight job of misinterpreting me on this point. I mention that it cannot be the case that two mutually exclusive claims are simultaneously true, but this fact alone does not mean that it's an all-or-nothing scenario. It could be the case that two religious texts are not making mutually exclusive claims and thus are both correct. So, to eliminate all other spiritual competitors you do need to demonstrate that where other books do not disagree with Christianity they are still wrong because this argument alone would be able to demonstrate that the Bible is the ONLY valid religious text. Otherwise, Christianity could be a valid religious text towards getting into heaven whereas Buddhism might be good at attaining peace and happiness in the present life and thus, both texts are valid in different aspects. Finally, let's discuss Biblical contradiction. This post is already running very long, so I don't want to spent too much time getting bogged down in this discussion (this could be a debate unto its self), but I do want express my puzzlement on your refutation of the first contradiction. As you explain the story, Moses comes down from getting the Ten Commandments and sees people worshiping graven images. He then assembles the good guys and tells them to "kill their family that have sinned their own family so that no one would kill the family of another." This sounds suspiciously like murder to me. It was unlawful and involved killing people for essentially no good reason. I have much more to say, but I'll leave it at that and await your response.