The Bible was inspired by God

As requested here is the link for con's previous round http://pastebin.com... I ask Pro: if I didn't read the bible, would that make your arguments more true or false? Of course not. Actually it makes quite the difference. If you have never read the Bible for yourself, then how can you debate that it is false and was written by man. Think of it like, I am trying to argue that Darwin's book Immutability of Species is completely false, but I never read it for myself. I take other peoples word for it that it is false and try to argue off that. When I do this, I am not thinking for myself. I am not studying are my arguments true or false. You have to make sure that the arguments you find are true. This is why it makes a difference. Given the number of errors Pro has already made. So far I haven't made any factual errors. The "errors" con is referring to are that I said people thought the earth was flat, that people thought blood wasn't worth much, and that the earth is held up by a man named Atlas. The first two aren't errors because those passages in the Bible were written before it was even suggested that the earth was round or that blood is useful. The third also isn't an error. Atlas was believed to hold up the world as well as the sky. If you don't believe me you can check out con's source http://www.theoi.com.... The Bible contains more scientific facts than any other religious book combined. I could easily give 50 or more facts that the Bible contains (and it being impossible for it to be common knowledge at that time). The other scientific facts that I have mentioned still stand until you are able to prove them false. To prove the Bible in this round, I will be using the three tests needed to prove an ancient document is true. These tests are the internal test, the external test, and the bibliographic test. The internal test involves searching if there is any contradictions inside the document. But when applying this test, historical scientists use Aristotles dictum(The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document in itself, not assigned by the critic to himself). Basically, the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document if a legitimate explanation is given for a said contradiction. I advise con to do their research before they post a contradiction of the Bible. Because if I am able to give a legitimate explanation for it, it isn't considered a contradiction. The external test involves matching up the historical facts in the document with other known historical and archaeological facts. Let's see if the Bible matches up to that. Iraneous writes "So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavors to establish his own peculiar doctrine" Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true." Due to lack of time I have to cut this short. http://www.knowwhatyoubelieve.com... http://www.knowwhatyoubelieve.com... The third test is the bibliographical test. This test involves testing whether the copies we have today are true to the original. This has been what con has been trying to emphasize during most of the debate. Con says that it is probable that the Bible has been edited or changed over time. They claim that the memories of people are faulty and that they might have changed the Bible. But if they did accidentally change things while copying, like in the game of telephone, then we should be certain to find some contradictions in the Bible. But since we don't find that, it was either edited on purpose, or it was divinely inspired. Now to discuss the theory that thy edited it. There would have been no trouble for the Old Testament to be copied down exactly. It was considered sacred to the Jews and while copying them they took more care to be precise than has been made for any other book. "[1] A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals, [2] prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew. [3] These must be fastened together with strings taken from clean animals. [4] Every skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire codex. [5] The length of each column must not extend over less than 48 nor more than 60 lines; and the breadth must consist of thirty letters. [6] The whole copy must be first-lined; and if three words should be written without a line, it is worthless. [7] The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other color, and be prepared according to a definite recipe. [8] An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least deviate. [9] No word or letter, not even a, yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not having looked at the codex before him. . . . [10] Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene; [11] between every new parashah, or section, the breadth of nine consonants; [12] between every book, three lines. [13] The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but the rest need not do so. [14] Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress, [15] wash his whole body, [16] not begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink, [17] and should a king address him while writing that name he must take no notice of him." ( from A General Introduction to the Bible, Revised and Expanded). But right now you may be thinking "If they took so much care then why don't we find numerous copies today?) and the answer would be again that they thought it was holy. The Old Testament was mostly written on papyrus and animal hides which will wear out easily. Those that did wear out were given a ritual burial ceremony. This explains why we can't find very many copies, and still the Old Testament is reliable. First century historian Josephous writes "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind until his death"but as to the time from the death of Moses until the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life." The old testament passes the bibliographic test. For lack of characters and time these sites will explain how the new testament is reliable. http://www.leaderu.com... http://www.knowwhatyoubelieve.com... http://www.godandscience.org... In concluding my final round for the debate, I would like to thank con. Their arguments have made me do my research to try to prove the Bible. My faith in the Bible has been greatly strengthened through this research. I thank you for this debate may the best debater win.