Historicity of the Bible

Okay. I'll start with your accusations, and go from there. Accusation 1: Contradiction=confusion=untrustworthy Accusation 2: DUWR Accusation 3: Kind is self-explanatory Accusation 4: First argument Accusation 1: Contradiction=confusion=untrustworthy. If I tell you that there is an apple on the table, but then my friend comes up to you and reports that there are two apples on the table, does that make me untrustworthy? I think not. We're both right. There is AN apple on the table. In fact, there are two. There's still a contradiction, but definitely no confusion. You can trust both people because both are right. Accusation 2: DUWR Reportedly, DUWR is the Hebrew word for sphere, but actually, if you look up the word, it's not the word for sphere. It is the word for moving in circular motion; that is, to dwell. And the word used in Isaiah is indeed the word for circle. But, at the time, the people understood a circle to be any round object including a sphere. So no, DUWR is not the word for sphere, the argument still stands because the word in Hebrew used in Isaiah is, "chug". It means anything from a flat circle to a compass to a sphere. Also, it is pronounced, "KHOOG". Accusation 3: Kind is self-explanatory Not actually. The word, kind could be closer to our word for genus. I was simply trying to point out that "kind" is a broader term. For example, there are of 400 different breeds of dogs, but they all belong to the same genus, "Canis familiaris". We could say that there are 400 different KINDS of dogs and still be accurate, but that is not how this phrase was used here. Notice that the passage talks of birds, and land animals. There are many different species of both. But notice that no specific species are mentioned. Only different groups of animals: birds, cattle, creeping things, etc. It's general. So no, the word, "kind" is not self-explanatory, after all, since we don't use it in reference to large groups of animals anymore. We tend to use it for specificity (as in, "this kind of flower" or "that kind of dog" accompanied by a finger pointing out what we're talking about). Accusation 4: First argument You mentioned that I touched on your argument about the Bible being the Word of God. That's true. I did touch on it. But the simple fact is, that if the Bible isn't the Word of God, then it shouldn't be trusted. But, if it is God's Word, and God cannot lie, then how can we NOT trust it? That's probably what will be the centerfold point of this debate, so it's best if I simply explain that we have evidence that suggests biblical accounts are accurate. For example, some skeptics will ask, "Who was the last king of Babylon?" We answer that it was Belshazzar. Then, many skeptics grin widely as they pull out the historical records, and prove that the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus. So which is it? Belshazzar, or Nabonidus? The answer, both. They were co-regents. History records this. I have one last piece of evidence to bring to the table, and then I have a quick question about this debate since we sort of skipped ahead. If the Bible is not true, then no prophecies held within it should have been fulfilled (and I'm talking about the specifics). For example, Daniel prophesied of Alexander the Great's rise and fall from power. Look it up in Daniel 8. True, it's symbolic, but the meaning of each symbol is made clear. Daniel saw a vision of a two-horned ram, representing the Medo-Persian Empire, charging in every direction, and he couldn't be stopped until a one-horned goat came from the west, killed the ram, and "became great". Then, at the height of its power, the horn on the goat's head was broken, and split in four ways. So here's what we know. Medo-Persia was the ruling power at the time of Daniel, and it seemed unstoppable. That is, until Alexander the Great conquered them, and basically conquered the known world of the time. Then, just when you thought nothing could beat him, he died. Alexander also had no clear heir, so his kingdom was divided among his four generals. Daniel's vision is later interpreted for him within the same chapter. History, of course, reports the exact same story. This is so accurate than many skeptics try to post-date Daniel's writing after the fact despite numerous manuscripts indicating otherwise. Now, on to the debate question. Since we sort of jumped the gun a little, I say we close this out on round three, and just use round four to bid farewell. We're already well into the rebuttals portion of this debate, but I'll go with whatever you decide. I do want to point out, though that you misspelled a word in your last response. I believe it was, "certain". You spelled it with an additional "a". Again, whatever you decide about round three is up to you. I can do this either way. Thank you.