The Bible is a reliable historical document

But then he feels that he has the right to tell me I can't say the same thing but with my religion I'm going to say something? Listen up people, Satanists are being unfairly discriminated against!* I only meant God Bless you as simple manners; I apologize if I legitimately offended you. However, it seems as if my opponent isn’t taking this debate very seriously. But it will need to be brought up when we're treating the Bible as a historical document. If the world was created in seven days then it is a reliable historical document. If it wasn't (and it wasn't) then the Bible is not a reliable historical document. So I will be bringing the topic up. Well actually my opponent takes the first chapter of Genesis out of context. If you look at the root word in Hebrew for the word day, it has four meanings: a 24 hour day, all of the daylight hours, part of the daylight hours, and finally a long but finite piece of time. Now if you read the chapter you will see that each day begins and ends, however not the seventh day in which God rests does not end. This would lead us to believe that we are now in the seventh “day” so to speak. It’s merely a misinterpretation of the original language, and I can assure you that the Bible is parallel to the 4 billion year old Earth model. First, I would like to call into question my opponent's source where he gets most of his information from. When I clicked on his link, it took me to a page that said, "Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry". We are looking at the Bible in a historical context though, so we need to be objective. My opponent's only source is clearly not objective and obviously biased towards the affirmation of the resolution. Well my opponent has offered no sources at all and no evidence to show that this is biased at all (except for the fact that it contains Christian in its name) But where does he bring the evidence that they are the same. All he brought was his graph that claims 95% accuracy of the Bible without showing how or why. It was 99.5% accurate and my evidence is the 5,000 manuscripts that correlate to show that the New Testament is the most documented book in the history of mankind. He does not refute this whatsoever. I will say that he should bring some objective evidence before we can get this debate underway. Every piece of evidence in the world will be biased in some way or another, there is no avoiding this. It seems as if my opponent has failed to attack any of my actual arguments and simply attacked my evidence. I find people do this when they are faced with a claim that they cannot refute. Now as to my opponent's second argument, look it up in his source, he completely copies and pastes everything from his source word for word. The majority of the information was factual evidence for my case. I gave the source, I did not claim I wrote it, and this is an online debate. I’ll write a brief summary of what my argument was, however I remind the readers that my opponent once again did not attack my case due to invalid reasons. In my second contention I provided evidence supporting the Bible as a book of history. I made the claim that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted the Bible. I then gave a list of non-Biblical sources that confirmed people, places, and events in the Bible. I then gave a source indicating that Luke was a historian and recorded several things that happened in the past (making the Bible a book of History, Acts is actually the history of the early church. My evidence was that from the sources I gave and they back up this claim. My opponent is not debating at all; he is ignoring the obvious fact that the New Testament is a reliable document. Whether or not you believe what it says is a different issue, however, is a completely different matter. But, it would be illogical to disregard the Bible as a historical document. My opponent has failed to attack a single piece of my case. He calls my sources biased with no reason but his subjective opinion to back it up. My opponent disregards all of my evidence because of my biased sources, using nothing but his biased opinions. This is the video that gave me the information for the original language of genesis: http://www.youtube.com...