The Bible is God's Word

“I am allowed to use whatever version of the Bible as long as it helps me prove the King James Version is true.” No, Pro cannot. Language and wording change dramatically from version to version. One version has a certain word (like yatsar) that means before, while another version (this one) says "after" in other words. What Pro asks of us is to ignore the language from the KJV and replace it with ancient Hebrew. This is not valid if he argues that the KJV ONLY is the word of God (as he said). When Pro tries to refute my contradictions, he uses a page that argues using a NEW KJV, a modified form of the agreed KJV. The page says: “Notice that Matthew does not say that only two women were there. Mark does not say only three women were there. They simply focus on the women they name.” Convenient, the author uses a No True Scotsman fallacy, saying this isn’t REALLY what Matt. meant, even though Matt. clearly says so (amount of women). Ex: “The FBI says bin Laden blew up the Twin Towers” “Cat Stevens was there!” “Why don’t they mention him?” “They just focus on the people it names”. As for the other contradiction:1. The website uses Greek, which is not allowed for this debate. 2.The page says Matt’s account is Joseph’s because Jechonias couldn’t have children and Jesus couldn’t have been his physical descendant. However, Jechonias does have children: Matt. 1:12” Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;” The second website says that Luke’s account is Mary’s:“in Matthew’s list, some women were included..So, if this were a genealogy of Mary, then she would be listed.” “Matthew’s genealogy is Joseph’s.” Matthew DOES list Mary (1:16), and Luke doesn’t. How do you know Heli is Mary’s father, when Heli is only named once without Mary? Luke:3:23:”Now Jesus Himself..thirty years of age, being..the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,”. The first page says that women did not appear in lists of genealogy because they took their husband’s name, but this can’t be true, as Pro’s second page admits: “in Matthew’s list, some women were included, such as Tamar, Ruth,..”. The obvious question is: why did THEY appear? “..not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian..people who wanted to rid the world of Muslims were not following the Bible, therefore their works show that they are not a Christian.” A bad criterion. Let’s say Pro’s grandfather (no offense intended) said the Bible didn’t mention using phones, and Pro using it shows he is not a real Christian. According to Pro’s logic, this is totally valid. Crusaders wore a cross, spread the Christian faith, and were sanctioned by the Church of Rome, which makes them Christians. “The Qur"an has never been majorly persecuted like the Bible has..How can the Bible be loved by millions, and at the same time persecuted..(to the point of killing others..)..the Qur’an cannot relate.. It is loved by many, but no one has killed someone else because they hated it..” Pro ignored what I said about the Argument from Emotion and uses an Appeal to Popularity too, arguing against my example. Lots of people killed others when Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” was released. Others loved it. This doesn’t mean Rushdie is more right than others. As for the rest, the war on ISIS is a clear example of violence against Islam. They are fundamentalist Muslims who are killed because of their actions (sanctioned in Islam). “Job 37:7 “He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work.” Criminal fingerprinting involves DNA and advanced computer processing, none of which are mentioned, like the blood example I gave. Man coming from dirt is not plausible, as we evolved, which I will explain shortly. “Radiometric Dating is not an accurate way of finding out the age..” The website’s info. on radiometric dating is inaccurate; the decay rate of an atom is a mathematical constant(4) and atoms are trapped in zircons, which don’t allow other minerals to get inside.(5) We know then: 1.That the decay rate is the same 2.The atoms weren’t contaminated. “This comment is just the same as me saying, we know evolution is false..” Genetics can show we are related to all animals, some more than others. It traces us back millions of years to a common ancestor. Fossils are also evidence, as they show the transition from one species to another by using unique characteristics of animals to relate them. Now useless body parts (a whale has hand-like bones in it’s fins and has a hip-bone.) and micro evolution are observable proof.(2) “..The flood didn't need to get higher than mount Everest because there was no mount Everest. The mountains could have been created after the flood.” The Himalayas are millions of years old (3), while the Flood was supposed to happen some 5,000 years ago. There is no evidence of such event happening. “Grass..can survive for a day without sun..don't you think if someone is able to speak things into existence, they can make things grow and survive one day without the sun.” He could, except you haven’t proven that a person capable of this exists, and you forget grass evolved, as I mentioned. This is why it is necessary that you prove God is real. “..there are no giants. So what we observe today, is what has always been happening. Well I guess you have to get rid of evolution. Because we don't see animals evolving..today.” The argument is a Red Herring. Pro gives a useless argument, as giants aren’t necessary for evolution to occur. Evolution takes millions of years to happen, which is why you don’t see humans evolving right now. Yet you may look at our ancestry and see how they are slightly different or incredibly different. (1) “Dinosaurs were called dragons..” Pro provides no proof. Plus, there were no 7 headed dinosaurs. (Same verse) “..human beings can’t live more than 900 years. There is no such thing as something being supernatural. Don't you think that NOTHING exploding and forming the world we know today is supernatural?” This is a Red Herring and he is “Avoiding the Issue”, as he does not answer the question and goes into what the definition of supernatural is and what I assume to be Big Bang talk, which wasn’t mentioned. “..the Earth isn’t flat. This verse does not imply that..Since Jesus is the Son of God, He can do anything, including see all the kingdoms of the world from one spot..The Bible does not imply the earth is flat. In fact Isaiah 40:22 says the earth is round or spherical..” Indeed, this is called a contradiction. Pro uses the Blind Authority fallacy to prove his point. He breaks common sense (one can’t see all the surface of a round object standing on top of a high point) and instead argues that Jesus saw all kingdoms with super-vision, so to say, because he is supposedly the son of God. This is another reason why Pro needs to prove that Jesus had said supernatural powers and he existed, else we cannot assert that he could do what Pro says he did. “And lastly, I do not have to prove God is real to be able to prove the Bible is true. That is an entirely different debate topic..” To prove that the KJV is God’s word you do, because you point to the (false) statement that the Bible has no faults, yet this would not prove it was made by a God. A link between both is necessary. I explain why you need to prove his existence in the grass example. You also try to justify your claims by saying Jesus had divine powers, and you expect me to accept that without proof, which is ridiculous. Finally, he uses the Appeal to Accomplishment fallacy and the Appeal to popularity by saying the Bible is the most printed book. This does not mean it is divine. If a badly written book sells more than an accurate book, this does not mean the former has more truth in it. Pro commits 7 fallacies: Appeal to Accomplishment, Appeal to popularity, Argument from Emotion, Red Herring, Blind Authority fallacy, No True Scotsman, and Avoiding the Issue fallacy. For space issues, I’ll paste the sources on the comments section.