The Bible is reliable

Re: Rebuttal 1) Creation accounts Adam and Eve were the first humans and nothing I said contradicted that. Genesis 1 and 2 are not necessarily in chronological order in all aspects. Genesis 2 states that Adam was created and God saw he was ALONE and then created the birds of the air and brought the animals to Adam to see how he will name them. The birds were created on the 5th day (Genesis 1:20-23). Adam was there before the flying creatures which means he was created before the 5th day or perhaps early the 5th day. The other people were created on the 6th day. Eve was created on the 5th day after the animals because the text says that God created the animals but did not see them suitable as a helper for Adam and therefore created Eve. So Adam and Eve were created before the other people mentioned that was created on the 6th day and therefore were the first humans. Keep in mind that each day started out with "God said". As for your reference: Jim Persinger should go read Genesis 2 again and do the math. 2) Bearing Witness The context determines the interpretation. Picking a verse here and there can be used to say anything you want. The Watchtower is famous for this practice. The verse you quote "I am ONE who" makes it sounds like a definite contradiction but adding "and the father" gives it a different interpretation. The Trinity is three persons in one. Therefore distinction is made and that is the widely held Christian interpretation through the ages. The creeds formulated through the centuries stipulate this. Logic tells us that you cannot be your own son; you can only be someone else"s son or father. I never referred to any interpretation as a requirement for the debate or made it a condition for the debate. I asked for Scriptures showing a contradiction and requested to use the KJV. You gave the Scriptures. I answered your claim using other Scriptures. I did not appeal to any "widely held" interpretation to prove anything. Keeping this in mind, your allusion to cherry picking and a stacked debate is not valid. I did not initiate this debate to get ranking points as a great debater. If you can convince me there really is a problem for which there is no logical probable explanation then I will probably stop believing. If your arguments fail, will you start believing or are you biased rather than really searching for truth? The end vote does not make your arguments necessarily true or valid and mine wrong. If your arguments are not convincing then quite simply it is not convincing. I have noticed here, and other"s have pointed it out here as well, that often times people vote because they do not want to see their "view point" lose the debate instead of being critical and judging fairly according to the set criteria. Do not confuse what you stated as an interpretation issue. You claimed contradictory creation accounts when the Bible did not even mention Adam in Genesis 1 but clearly do so in Genesis 2. New contradictions Rebuttal: 3) Does God desire animal sacrifices in the old testament? The Bible gives a history of two Testaments and how the one fulfilled the other. When the fulfillment came a change occurred. At first God required sacrifice but Israel messed this up because it became a precept upon a precept, in other words a ritual that was done simply for the sake of doing it. God was not satisfied with this and that is why it was said, speaking of the work Christ came to be done on earth, thou delight not in burnt offering. Sacrifice was part of a covenant between God and Israel that they did not keep (as it was intended to be kept) because faith was required in worshiping God and Israel continuously turned to others rather to God (clearly showing their lack of faith in God). Since the Israelite's did not keep their end of the agreement it is justified should God wish to change some of the conditions. In the same way even today, when you enter a contract with someone and that person break the contract by not fulfilling all the conditions, then you are not under any obligation to uphold your end of the contract. People may say you are contradicting your contract obligations but in fact you do not have those obligations anymore if the other party breaks the contract (and therefore there is no contradiction to begin with). If all requirements were fulfilled by both parties and you then change the regulations, it will be a contradiction because you are under obligation. Instead of Christ coming to earth and offering burnt offerings, He became the burnt offering Himself as required by God. Christ came to fulfill the law and therefore a change came about. A contradiction here would be if God said that the law did not have a fulfillment in the Messiah or that animal sacrifice will be the standard for EVER. The so called "contradiction" you refer to was a change foretold in the OT because Israel did not fulfill their contractual (keeping the covenant) obligations. This is only a seemingly contradiction if you do not know Biblical theology and ignore contract law that is even practiced today. 4) Do Just people exist, or not? Ecclesiastes is not saying there IS NO "just" man. It is saying that all "just" men that do good are also sinning. In order for you to be able to do good and be able to sin, like the verse points out, you must obviously exist. A hypothetical interpretation to show the problem with your argument can be that at that time when it was written there was no just man. I am only mentioning this to point out that it does not say that a just man NEVER existed at any point of time on the earth like you claim. Comparing two verses hundreds of years apart and then trying to make them sound as if they refer to the exact same time period is taking things way out of context. The contradiction exists because you ignore Biblical theology that foretold that the justification of man will come hundreds of years later by the work of Christ by comparing circumstances that are hundreds of years apart. That"s like comparing a 1930"s Ford with a 2017 Ford model and claiming they are exactly the same. Who can prove that when Ecclesiastes was written the author intended only to claim that there were no just men AT THAT TIME or up until that time and not that one NEVER EXISTED like you claim? The text does not say a just man NEVER EXISTED. The author only refers to his time period and not beyond. It is quite possible that hundreds of years later there could be just men after he had written it because the verse does not state there will NEVER be any just men after that time.