The Bible contains FATAL flaws.

RC1) Pro Dropped ContentionRC2) My oponent claims that because some healings fail, that all healings are false. My opponent has jumped to a faulty conclusion by way of faulty syllogism. Lets look at the syllogism that he uses and discuss the failure in logic.A) All healings that fail are falseB) Some healings failC) All healings are false.In order for this syllogism to work, the B) in the sequence must be universal... it is not, so his syllogism fails.He also seeks to question why if it is God's work and not man's, then it shoudl not fail and therefore it is not God's impluse. The simply answer is that the ones that fail are not God's work and are the result of a mistake made on the part of the believer. As I said previously, my opponent has not shown sufficient proof that ALL healings are false and therefore his point does not work.In regard to Tongues... he has committed the same fallacy. He points out that some instances of tongues may be a result of mental illness, hypnois, or other things. He also cites the venerable Wikipedia to support this. However, all this proves - if it proves anything - is that some instances of tongues may be false. I am not denying this. Again, my opponent does not show that tongues are universally false, and therefore his syllogism does not work.RC3) Pro Dropped ContentionRC4) My opponent writes "There is one big attack on the fact that some people go unpunished. God is just. Therefore, he CANNOT let sin go unpunished. God is unchangeable. Therefore, if God lets sin go unpunished, he is not just. Therefore, he cannot be God because he contradicted his very nature."There are two significant issues with this contention. First, and foremost, my opponent has not shown that not all people are punished. Regardless, the punishment of people other than Japhthah is irellevant to this debate. Only the punishment or lack of punishment of Japhthah is significant, and my opponent has not shown any evidence that supports the punishment of Japhthah did or did not occur. He is making an argument from silence and that argument does not hold water.Furthermore, my opponent asserts that God is just. I would ask the reader to consider where this knowledge comes from. In a discussion about the characteristics of the Christian God, the only source of knowledge about the Christian God is his revealed word in the Bible. In essence, my opponent is asserting that the Bible s authoratative by appealing to its authority in an argument. Since my opponent confirms the validity of the Bible in his argument, he is negating his own resolution that the Bible is invalid.RC5) My opponent is either being intentionally deceptive, or he is committing a mistake. I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the later, and I urge the voters to do the same.The error comes in in the following way.My opponent cites Mark 13:24-30 and treats it as though it were a parallel passage to the one in question. However, it is not. The passage that my opponent cites is part of what is called "The Olivet Discourse." It is called tihs because Christ delivered this teaching to his disciples on the Mount of Olives. We see parallel passages in Matthew and Luke (Chapters 24 and 21 respectively). However the passages we are talking about is Mark 9 (parallels in Matthew 16 and Luke 9). To put it plainly, my opponent has used Mark 13 to define what Jesus means in Mark 9. While mark 16 MAY help inform us of the meaning of Mark 9, my opponent has treated them as though they are the same passage. Because of this unjustified connection, my opponent's argument does not hold water.I would like to thank my opponent for a fun and engaging debate. I also appreciate the patience it took for the readers to read this, and look forward to reading your votes and comments.