What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness

== MY CASE== Pro ignores all my arguments, instead assuming that by proving the Bible's divinity, he would refute Religious Pluralism. This is probably true, but now all I have to do to win the debate is refute his case for the Bible's divinity. . == PRO'S CASE == Despite Pro"s plagiarism, I will still refute the arguments made for the Bible's divinity as if he actually made them. .. R1) Scientific Inaccuracy Pro dismisses my argument regarding YEC by using a different interpretation of the Bible. This is an acceptable response. However, he then goes on to try turning this point in his favor by claiming that the Bible makes scientific predictions far ahead of its time. Let"s take a look at the examples he provided" "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22) "He suspends the Earth over nothing" (Job 26:7) Neither of these verses even vaguely demonstrate that the Bible possessed any scientific knowledge ahead of its time. Calling the earth a "circle" could actually be interpreted as the Bible calling the Earth flat, and Babylonian astronomers already knew that the Earth doesn"t hang on anything (. http://www.spacetoday.org...). The Bible"s consistency with science is shaky at best, only holding up thanks to the possibility of translation errors and the arbitrary decision to take the book of Genesis metaphorically. .. R2) Historical Inaccuracy Pro"s only rebuttal to my argument regarding the complete absence of historical evidence for the Exodus is that the Egyptians didn"t record it because it was a shameful event. Yet, I already showed that the Egyptians recorded all major and minor events, including ones that didn"t go very well for them. Take the example of the Hyksos" conquest of Egypt, for example (. http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk...). This event was a stain upon Egypt"s honor as an empire, yet they STILL recorded it. Take the embarrassing defeats of Ramses the Great at Kadesh (. http://www.discoveringegypt.com...). Even the military defeats of greatly respected kings were recorded! If events as major and unflattering as those were recorded by the Egyptians, how is it logical to assume that the entire Exodus just "slipped their mind"? It is much more logical to assume that the Exodus accounts were heavily exaggerated. And as for Pro"s attempts to turn this in his favor by citing other examples of the Bible"s general consistency with history, I must point out that having a vague basis in history is not really anything special. Even the Iliad, which we commonly regard as a work of fiction, had enough of a basis in history that we were able to use it to locate the original city of Troy. The Bible getting a few external names, dates, and kingdoms correct really does not prove anything at all, other than that it is not *completely* fictional, and I never asserted that in the first place. R3) OT God vs. NT God Pro"s entire essay of apologetics can be boiled down to the following quote: "God"s firmness for righteousness, as revealed throughout the Bible, is no less nor his love any greater than it was at the beginning of his dealings with humans in Eden. The differences in his personality seemingly demonstrated in various parts of the Bible are in reality different aspects of the same unchanging personality. These result from the differing circumstances and persons dealt with, which called for different attitudes or relationships. " This would seem like a valid answer upon first sight, but inspecting it more closely, it still does not make any sense. It is not realistically possible for the same God (unless he"s schizophrenic) to first order the genocide of an entire nation just for not being lucky enough to be born into his favored group, and then later claim that he loves ALL humans so much that he "sacrificed his only son" for them. .. there is a cognitive dissonance between these two descriptions of God, and trying to cover it up using broad generalizations like "both are different aspects of the same personality" doesn't work. This enormous contradiction between the OT and NT is plenty to show that the Bible is flawed, being much more consistent with the Pluralistic view of it (i. e. "a man-made artifact, reflecting the cultural norms of the time") R4) New Testament Contradictions Pro has not responded to any of the examples of New Testament contradictions that I have provided. .. . == CONCLUSION == My opponent has dropped all my arguments for Religious Pluralism, and I have completely dismantled his case for the Bible's divinity by showing that it is a flawed, man-made artifact, in accordance with the pluralistic perspective.