Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility is a Failed Theology

I appreciate my opponent's argument and look forward to the rest of this debate. Since my opponent's arguments were all theological, my fifth argument will also serve as a rebuttal, with specific applications to my opponent's arguments later on.This last and final argument deals with the humanity of the Bible. When people say the Bible is the "Word of God," they usually imagined that it fell out of the sky one day, but this is not the case. Piece by piece, I will show how the Bible we have fails horridly to be called inerrant or infallible.This argument will be broken down into three parts Questionable Composition Wrongful Canonization Textual Criticism 1) Questionable CompositionTo begin, we need to look at the composition of some of the books of the Bible such as the Samuels and Kings, the Torah, and the Psalms. These books all have a human factor so large that the only argument that they are inerrant is "God did it."Samuel and KingsSamuel and Kings are made up of several different sources probably patched together in the reign of King Hezekiah and/or during the Exilic period in Babylon. Most people assume these books were written by one author, probably a prophet like Jeremiah, However, when we look at the books, we can clearly see that, although there certainly is scribal and editorial work, a good majority of the text of the Kings comes from earlier sources, some of which are named in the book, including the “Chronicles of the Kings” (1 Kings 14:19), “Acts of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41), and “Annals of the Kings of Judah” (1 Kings 14:29). The same goes for the Samuels.These editorials cause awkward conflicts in storyline1 Samuel 16:18.b-19 introduces us to David. It describes him as such:"a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence, and the Lord is with him.” Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me David your son, who is with the sheep.”The passage goes on in verse 21 to say that"And David came to Saul and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer."So in Chapter 16, David is a warrior and a man who becomes Saul's armor bearer. Chapter 17, however, changes the story. In this classic story about David and Goliath, David is reintroduced, and he is very different than before. Look at these exerts and look up the whole passage if you want for context:"Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons... And Jesse said to David his son, “Take for your brothers an ephah... of this parched grain... Goliath by name, came up out of the ranks of the Philistines and spoke the same words as before. And David heard him... " Wait a second... David was Saul's armor bearer, but now David is being a shepherd and not at battle? Odd..."And David said to Saul, “Let no man's heart fail because of him. Your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.” 33 And Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him, for you are but a youth, and he has been a man of war from his youth.”So wait, David was just a warrior and man of valor a chapter before, but now he's a boy who is no match? Odd again..."As soon as Saul saw David go out against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is this youth?” And Abner said, “As your soul lives, O king, I do not know.” 56 And the king said, “Inquire whose son the boy is.”This is the nail in the coffin. Saul does not even know who David is, but the chapter before he "greatly favored" David, saw him daily, and even asked that he be his armor bearer? No... Saul doesn't know who David is.In the course of just a few verses, David went from a man and warrior to a boy with no experience, from close bodyguard of Saul to a boy without military experience that Saul has never met.This is what happens when multiple sources are spliced together in a text. It is the human composition of human writings. Unless you want to say each individual author, perhaps dozens of them, were inspired and that the editors were somehow inspired with the whole process basically God whispering in ears, this doesn't work.2) Wrongful CanonizationAs a nice transition, the composition of a book has a lot to do with its canonization. One of the primary ways a book is considered as "canon," or acceptable for spiritual teaching and doctrine, is its authorship. In the New Testament, authorship by an apostles or friend of an apostle is a must. For the Old Testament, a prophet or similar figure must have written it. Another indicator is whether or not its theology is useful and/or meshes well with other books previously called canonical (Starting points with books like the Torah or Isaiah). Here is a summary of books that definitely do not fit into that category:Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Tradition says Moses wrote it) :Contradictions such as in the Creation narratives or 10 Plagues, differences in writing style, changing in the names for God (YHWH and Elohim) varies with the writing style. Contains entire chapters talking about the death of Moses. No external evidence for Mosaic authorship. JEDP Theory is the prevailing understanding. Not written by MosesEcclesiastes and Song of Solomon (Tradition says Solomon wrote it):Song of Solomon never mentions God one time in any way, nor does it claim Solomonic authorship. It is erotic poetry that was, according to the writing style, not written until the early Hellenistic Period. As for Ecclesiastes, it too never claims authorship by Solomon, and its writing style (including the Persian borrow-words of וּפַרְדֵּסִ֑ים and פַּרְדֵּ֣ס) show a late authorship. Certainly not by Solomon. In fact, the theology of Ecclesiastes is at points Greek, including annihilism, and in direct conflict with the rest of scripture.Esther (No claim to authorship):Esther never mentions God, has no claim to special authorship, and is not historical. Martin Luther tried to toss it out of the canon.New Testament ProblemsThe Gospel of Matthew (Tradition ascribes it to St. Matthew):Internally never once claims authorship, speaks of the disciples (which Matthew was one of) in the third-person, does not talk in different way when describing Jesus calling Matthew. No external evidence.1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (Tradition ascribes them to St. Paul)Internally, the writing style is entirely different from the undisputed Pauline Epistles. Using long sentences and different Greek words for "church," "spirit," and many others, there is little doubt in scholarship that Paul did not write these Epistles. Also, the author's emphasis on church structure and pastors is in direct conflict with 1 & 2 Corinthians (i.e. Pastors and deacons are the heads of the church v. all of one body, none greater than the other, Christ as head)Hebrews (Tradition Ascribes it to Paul) Never does the author claim to be Paul. This letter was long debated on in the church, and it is hard to believe how anyone thought Paul wrote it. Writing style is again different, and there is no mention of Paul writing it in Acts. Even evangelical scholars question the authorship.Revelation of John (Ascribed to St. John)It does not claim to be written by "John the Apostle," but "John of Patmos," which could literally be anyone. Dating brings it up to 100 AD, and St. John would have had to have been about 100 years old. During this time "The Revelation of the Shepherd of Hermas," as well as "The Revelation of Peter," all three were written within 25 years of each other.So many Bible books have composition and authorship issues. How can they all be right? Tradition does not hold water. 3) Textual Criticism There are more textual variants in the New Testament Greek than words in the Greek. Variants mean that in one text, the passage says or is written one way, but in the other it changes. This is mostly based on pre-fourth century fragments and 4th and 5th century codexes, or complete copies of the New Testament. Here are some major variants, although there are many moreMark 16:9-20This passage is present in our Bibles, but not in the earliest Codexes, 4th-century manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. This describes Jesus' ascension, the Great commission, and talk of miracles. It is quoted on the wall of my university campus, but was not written by Mark.John 7:53-8:11 This heartwarming tale of the woman taken in adultery, so beautifully shown in "The Passion of Christ," was never written by John and added in the 300's. It is not found in P66 or P75 fragments, nor Codex's Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Essentially Jesus fanfiction.1 John 5:7-8 Comma JohanneumThis passage is the sole explicit reference to the Trinity in the Bible and does not appear in a single Greek manuscript, nor the earliest Latin Vulgate manuscripts. Without this, the doctrine of the Trinity is again open to debate.There are hundreds of other major examples, but these are just three. Rebuttal Based on Argument Five: My opponent's major argument are literally "The Bible says it's inerrant, so it is!" My opponent assumes, based on the Bible, that God inspired the Bible. Then He turns around and says since the Bible is the inspired word of God, it has no fault, so it must be from God! Basically circular reasoning.If we can't even know who the author was, whether it should be canonical, or what the text even originally said, then how can we use it to argue for itself? My opponent's argument for contradictions or otherwise? Out of context passages talking about an apocalyptic theology and persecution and calling it a "double meaning." He assumes that the Bible is inerrant because its the word of God because the Bible says so and is inerrant.But I ask again: "How can we even know if its canonical, what it originally said, or the author with this information."I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal and furtherance of his arguments. Sources will be put in a bibliography at the end.