Foolishness in the bible that no god would ever put into effect thus proving that god is false

Well it seems civil lasted only one round. My opponent says that God would not use writing to communicate to humans but fail to provide us with an explanation of what would have been a reliable way to do it. His claim excludes a vital alternative that he fails to identify. Strange that Backwards would talk about straying from the path if he cannot direct you to it. My illustrious opponent makes the strangest claims and it is difficult to answer him logically. Why should there be only one version (although I think he confuses version with translation) of the Bible if there are many different languages? Are people not allowed to translate it and read it in their own language? England had many different colonies they governed and the King"s decrees where issued in the language of the colony so that the people could understand it. Should it not be likewise with the word of God? The only thing worse than answering this backwards type of thinking is to actually think that God would give a book in only one language to communicate to all people and fails to realize that everyone else who speak a different language will not be able understand it. My opponent claims to be intelligent and educated but cannot read something and distinguish between figurative and literal genre? What"s wrong with God talking to people? Nothing, it happened but the testimony and the law is what the Christians used to stay on the right track. The two had to agree to prevent perversion. You argue against something that you present as an alternative but is actually found to be that way in the Bible? If Amon Ra (what the hell? An atheist with the name of a god?), Matt Dillahunty and you don"t know that is to be found in the Bible then it says volumes of how little you actually know about it. You say the Bible is unreliable as your basic premise but then quote it as a reliable source. If you cannot understand what is wrong with that then you probably also do not believe that bestiality exist even today. 10 Grossest Bestiality Cases in Arizona - http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com.... This is unfortunately typical of what is expected of you as was pointed out in the comments section showing that you claim "God hates" but also God does not exist? Backwards states: "No supreme deity would ever put those things/ has/ rules/ regulations or whatever you wish to call them into effect/ play." Just about every supreme authority here on earth stipulates regulations to guide people. Why on earth would God not do the same? You have a very strange idea of what a God should be. A God that gives no guidance is your idea of what he should be? Although my opponent states about the bible: "No WAS and IS corrupted." He fails to provide evidence that the true word was not preserved. The quote shows that the people could distinguish between what was and was not corrupted. His argument is circular at best. My opponent failed to debunk the verses I quoted in support of my argument that the Bible"s meaning remained the same over the centuries. The aim of the KJV was to make the previous one better and translate from the Hebrew and Greek directly. Read the preface, but then again claiming you know everything it seems you missed that sentence somehow or else you probably would not make these puerile statements. "Science has proof." He says. Ok, using science, show me what love is. Not the effects of love. Put something on the table that is proved to be love by science. Until then it is quite useless to even try and explain it to you. Your basic premise is false. I base my faith on historical proof. Although I was not there and did not observe it myself I therefore call it faith. The testimonies handed down were truthful and there is no reason to doubt it. The early Christians died for their faith; they did not receive money or fame for testifying but paid with their lives for what they believed. There was no incentive for them to lie. "Perhaps my opponent can define a Eunuch and explain why he says it can never happen so I can properly rebut his claim." He answers "Why don"t you look it up rather than asking stupid questions?" Are you aware that some babies are born without genitalia? They are eunuchs from birth oh "educated beyond common sense" one. Your ignorance should not be confused with the meaning of the word. Man Born With No Genitals Has Gender Confirmed 25 Years Later - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk.... I was trying to be kind and give you a chance to clarify yourself instead of calling you stupid. I am not saying you are stupid; I"m just giving an example of what I could have done. You identified Jesus as "sickened" because of what he said. Therefore by association that which he said falls in the same category and therefore you called what He said also sick. Something I would have thought an educated person like you would understand. 2 Samuel 23:8 - You asked how it was done, I replied probably over time by inference. Again something an educated man like you should have no problem to understand. I thought you miss read the verse to make the ridiculous claim hinted at that he killed them all in one stroke. Perhaps you should proof read your answers. Just following your train of thought of course and no he was not Bruce Lee, I think you have them confused. You are to kind. D-k is short for Dansk right? Spoken by the Danish but unfortunately I"m not from Denmark although I like the country. Doing this for 40+ years and speaking to 25000 people? That"s also known as the fallacy of Appeal to accomplishment. I am not trying to bore an educated man like yourself, you probably already knew that. Since you brought the little children into the debate again, I ask you one more time: In the absence of God why do children still suffer?