The Bible contains FATAL flaws.

RC1) Pro dropped the contention.RC2) My opponent asserts:"There are many other healing that have failed--many can be explained scientifically. Most protestant churches hold the view that the Spiritual gifts only lasted a short time. Furthermore, why don't they just go into hospitals and heal cancer paitence and heal the deathly ill? Isn't it quite evil if you know you have the power to do that and don't?"There are two issues with these assertions. For the first section, just because some healings fail or are not supernatural does not mean others are not. He has not shown satisfactory proof that the healings claimed by some Churches are wholesale false. Furthermore, in his assertion that most protestant churches are cessationists (the gifts ceased at the end of the New Testament Church) he has not shown any evidence that this is true. Regardless, if the gifts ceased, that means logicaly they were active for a time. If they were active for a time, then Christ's words are true and we have no "fatal" flaw present.Furthermore, my opponent seeks to undermine the claims by asking why people do not heal everyone. This is a fallacious question, as this shows a poor understanding on the Christian understanding of spiritual gifts. The gift of healing is not represented as a superpower which the believer can use at will, it is represented in Scripture as a move of God's Holy Spirit through the believer, at the impulse of God not the believer. Specifically this impulse of the Spirit is for the edification of the Church.Also note that my opponent has sought to only attack the healing aspect of this passage and therefore acknwoledges that snake handling, poison drinking, and speaking in tongues are no longer in question.RC3) My opponent has not responded to my rebuttal and therefore we must assume that he has conceeded the point.RC4) My opponent claims that Pilate and Herod are in hell serving their punishment. While this may or may not be true, this is hardly the universal Christian perspective. Furthermore, he argues that Solomon's punishment for his transgressions was the discontinuement of his dynasty (not entierly accurate, the throne of Judah - the southern two tribes in the nation of Israel - was held by a davidic king and by extention a solomonic king until the exile to Babylon in 588/87 BC).This line of argumentation proves my point. Just because Jephthah did not recieve immediate temporal punishment does not mean that he is not punished. My opponent's initial claim was that Jepthah's actions were approved of by the LORD. However, we see this no where in the text. His response was that he was not punished. This assumes he was not punished. There are many theoretial punishments that are a result of his actions:A) His family line may have ended because he slew his only daughter.B) He was plagued with guilt for the rest of his life for his actions, just like when a parent allows the consequence of an action to be the punishment rather than impose another punishment on top of it. C) Loss of credibility and respect amongst his peers.D) Some form of eternal punishment.Simply put, my opponent rests his entire argument on the fact that there is no mention of his punishment. This is an argument from silence and is extremely weak. The fact that one aspect of his life (his faithfulness as a judge and redeemer of Israel) is honored in Hebrews 11 does not preclude some form of temporal or eternal punishment. There are many examples in Hebrews 11 of people who were punished temporally (David's first child with Basheeba was killed because of his adultry, for example) yet are still honored here. Why would we treat Jephthah differently without evidence to the contrary.RC5) My opponent is making a faulty association. He is claiming that because the two are closely placed within the text, that they must be associated. While this is a possible interpretation, and one that many hold, it is not the only interpretation. There is nothing inherant in the text to assume that "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father..." is synonymous with "The kingdom of God." In fact, if we look at the Parables of Christ, we see that the kingdom of God is described as many things. For example, in the Parable of the Mustard Seed we see that the kingdom of God is something that proceeds slowly with a process (just as a plant grows). To associate the kingdom of God with only the second coming ignores all of the other places that Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God (Primarily in the parables). Furthermore, John the Baptist preached the kingdom of God was "at hand" or imminent. John the Baptist presens the kingdom as Christ's first coming rather than his second.Plainly put, the kingdom of God is not limited to the second coming. Drawing comparison the the mustard seed: The seed was planted when Christ was born, sprouted when he died and was raised, and reaches full maturity in the second coming. However, seeing the sprout rather than the final plant does not mean you have not seen the plant. The apostles present DID see the kingdom of God and therefore this point is invalid.I did not respond to the single/plural distinction because it is not central to my primary argument in this contention. I was simply proposing an alternate theory to show that my opponent's argument is not the only possible one.Back to you Pro.