The Bible Is Inerrent

Thank you for the complement and the definition. Since i am to prove that the error you presented isn't really an error, i will start by contrasting your points. Contention one: Firmament According to dictionary.com, a Firmament is described as the vault to heaven otherwise known as the sky. in my opponent's version of the bible the word Firmament was used and not the Hebrew word "raqiya". What does this mean? The word firmament in and out of itself is not described as a solid figure, it is simply described as a dome above the earth. The fact that we all know that the sky as well as the atmosphere is like and acts like a dome. "A common approach is to model a dome, and either apply a texture map or use vertex colors to provide the impression of a sky." (http://vterrain.org...) Contention 1.2: Flat Earth Cosmology "It is he who sites above the circle of the earth, and its inhabatants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;..." ( MY OPPONENTS VERSE) i applaud my opponent for the use of this verse; however, i do believe that this verse has no errors associated with its wording or meaning. To properly understand this verse, we must look at it in an idealistic manner. This verse is not describing the earth's geometric shape but rather describing the role of God .This verse describes humans as grasshoppers and as we all know, we are noting like grasshoppers. In this same way, we can view the tent as the earth providing shelter for us and God who sits above us guiding and watching us. (camping trip) Tent: shelter, Grasshoppers: human, God: guidance/ plays the role of the guardian. Contention Two: Failed prophecies. Sub point: Tyre and Egypt The ancient world or rather city of Tyre was never rebuilt. Yes there is a modern city of tyre; however, around the city are rubbles of ancient Tyre proving that no city has been rebuilt over this ruin proving the prophecy to be correct. ""The modern city of Tyre is of modest size and is near the ancient site, though not identical to it. Archaeological photographs of the ancient site show ruins from ancient Tyre scattered over many acres of land. No city has been rebuilt over these ruins, however, in fulfillment of this prophecy." (Dennis and Grudem, "Tyre," The ESV Study Bible)" (http://www.padfield.com...) Contention three: The bible contains contradictions C3.1 Did Michal have children? i would like my opponent to read the WHOLE verse as it show's the origin of the "five sons of Michal "whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite"" if my opponent read this passage then he would have noticed the word "brought up" which implies that Michal acted as a midwife to these sons after their birth. With no other word or text to prove this statement wrong in the bible, we can only assume that it is the fact. "Michal's sister, Merab, married Adriel the Meholathite (1 Samuel 18:19), and it was Adriel's children that, according to 2 Samuel 21:8, belonged to Michal and were "brought up" by Michal. The Hebrew word translated "brought up" could mean that Michal actually gave birth to the children, but it also could mean that Michal acted as a midwife when the children were born, or that she reared the children. It is altogether possible that Merab died, and Michal, having the resources to provide for a family, and being childless herself, "adopted" Merab's children "Michal's sister, Merab, married Adriel the Meholathite (1 Samuel 18:19), and it was Adriel's children that, according to 2 Samuel 21:8, belonged to Michal and were "brought up" by Michal. The Hebrew word translated "brought up" could mean that Michal actually gave birth to the children, but it also could mean that Michal acted as a midwife when the children were born, or that she reared the children. It is altogether possible that Merab died, and Michal, having the resources to provide for a family, and being childless herself, "adopted" Merab's children " (http://www.apologeticspress.org...) C3.2 who is joseph's Father to better explain this, i would like to refer you to a source: "If you look closely, you will find that in Luke 3:23 you either have an explanatory foot note at the words "son of", or those words appear in italics. This is because "son of" is only assumed, but not actually in the Greek text. I believe it is better to assume that Joseph is "of Eli" as his son-in-law, not his son. Thus, Luke's genealogy is of Mary, not of Joseph. To support this are Luke's words that Jesus was "being, as was supposed the son of Joseph" [emphasis mine]. The word "son" does occur in this context. But Luke goes on to give the genealogy of Mary, who was indeed the natural line of heritage (Jesus being born of a virgin). In other words, Luke says "many think that Jesus is the natural son of Joseph, but in reality He is through the line of Mary, who is of Eli, of Matthat, etc." (http://askdrwhite.blogspot.com...) This although not the best source, makes sense as it does have biblical evidence. In conclusion, i have attacked all of my opponents contention's as well as provide a valid source to prove my words right.