The Bible has not been changed and corrupted

My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof so I shall now bring forth my arguments. Anyways, I shall define "corruption" as a change in the text. Allow me to quote the Bible. Contention 1: The Bible Attests to its own corruptionC1.1 Jeremiah 8:8 “How can you say; ‘We are wise, since we have Yahweh’s Law? ’. Look how it has been falsified by the lying pen of the Scribes! ” Jeremiah 8:8 I believe the Bible makes it very clear that the scribes purposfully corrupted the Law (1st 5 bookf of the OT). They corrupted it with their "pens"! That means they altered the law of the text. How else would a pin be able to corrupt something? From that, I urge members to VOTE CON as I proved FROM THE BIBLE that it has been corrupt. Thus, we cannot say "there are no corruptions" as the Bible attests to its own corruption. From here, we draw a few conclusions. The scribes falsified the Bible. The pens "lied" meaning that it has been corrupted by the scribes. C1.2) Matthew 2:15"And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. "If we were to go back to the original verse this was located in, it has been attributed to Hosea 11:1. However, let me quote Hosea 11:1. "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. " Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew completely took this out of context. We plainly see when the entire verse is quoted that it is referring to Israel--NOT Jesus. Hosea 11:2"As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images. "huh? When did Jesus do that? Contention 2: The translations of the Bible as we have it have been purposefully mistranslated. C1.2) Isaiah 7:14In the current translations, Isaiah 7:14 states something similar to this: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. "Many things wrong with that passage. Virgin is mistranslated. The word for "virgin" is the word alama which means "young woman. " IT NEVER MEANS VIRGIN! [1]; Matthew, yet again, brings this to Jesus. But when we look at the entire context it is clear that it is an immediate fulfillment. Allow me to elaborate one #2. The entire passage is referring to a war that is going on between king Ahaz and his enemies. Then when we read the rest of the verses, it becomes clear. 13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria. ” This obviously begs the question, "When did Jesus not know how to reject wrong and choose right? " Jesus was born more than 700 years after the event and thus could not bring any comfort to Ahaz. What's more is that the virgin birth makes god a sinner (heaven forbid! ) In Galatians 4:4 Paul claims that "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under law. " MAJOR problem here. IF jesus was born of a virgin, it violats the laws of the Torah. In Deuteronomy 22:23-24, "YHWH" makes it clear what constituts as adultry. Thus a claim made by Matthew that Jesus was born of a woman engaged to Joseph with God as his father is adultry. God's law does not allow for Him to seduce a maiden. What is the worth of a moral code that's violated by God? [2]| SUMMARY | Bible attests to its own corruption. Jeremiah 8:8 Matthew 2:15 (could also go under C2 and a misquote) The Bible is mistranslated. Isaiah 7:14 Makes God an adulterer. | CONCLUSION |We have seen that the Bible misquotes itself, attests to its own corruption, and makes God a sinner! Therefore, we cannot say that the Bible has not been corrupt and I urge a CON vote. In addition, my opponent has yet to fulfill his burden of proof. References1. . http://tinyurl.com...;2. . http://tinyurl.com...