The Bible is reliable

Pro writes, "The intended message [of the Bible] can be true or false, factual or not factual etc. All of these different ways of interpretation provides a basis to make reliable interpretations based on what is understood regarding the intended message." "That is not reliable; that leaves a lot of room for error." You seem to state that no one can interpret the ancient scriptures from any religion (or secular sources). The fact that people are able to translate it shows you are incorrect. The fallacy you commit is to base everything on the errors that can be committed but it does not necessarily mean that any errors was committed. Even if the Bible contains, what you might consider as far-fetched stories, that does not mean that the story was not accurately transmitted. "In the original Hebrew, the 10th Commandment prohibits taking, not coveting. The biblical Jubilee year is named for an animal"s horn and has nothing to do with jubilation." Hoffman should publish the "original text" from which he got the "original Hebrew". There are no exiting originals anywhere to be found today. There is nothing new about what Hoffman has to offer. The Kabala give secret meanings to Hebrew words, the Gnostics gave secret and mystical meanings to Words even the allegorical method of interpretation leaves open for such interpretation. The Church Fathers who were learned and skilled in the languages and had access to material Hoffman never had access too, condemned the Gnostics and the mystical interpretations that was also rampant in their day. "The pregnant woman in Isaiah 7:14 is never called a virgin." The word Alma can mean, a young woman who is not married. A young woman who was not married was a virgin back then. They obviously had higher standards than today and should be an example. You make the mistake here because the New Testament who was written by mostly Hebrews who understood Hebrew and who had access to older manuscripts than we had translated the word "virgin" in the Greek in the NT. That's how they understood it. Let's see, Hoffman or the guys who was there? I'll stick with the guys who was there. "Psalm 23 opens with an image of God"s might and power, not shepherding." Again, the New Testament calls Jesus the Shepherd. Obviously Hoffman has some mystical interpretation. "Dr. Hoffman goes on to explain that the mistakes stem from five flawed translation techniques: etymology, internal structure, cognates, old mistranslations, and misunderstood metaphor [3]." The Hebrew scribes used a complicated method of copying. They counted the letters in each line, each paragraph and then also counted the total of the words. Each letter in a word has a number. When the copy was finished the numbers would be compared and any deviation found would result in the copy being destroyed. The Dead Sea scrolls showed that the Hebrew books are the best preserved than any other. "Dr. Hoffman provides additional insight: "Metaphors are particularly difficult to translate, because words have different metaphoric meanings in different cultures." Again, is it even possible to do a correct translation then? It seems it can NEVER be done. Here is the fallacy, he uses the texts with all these faults and possibility of faults as support for his interpretation!!!! Thus, Pro contends that mis-translations can't occur because "the same message can still be conveyed" even if the words are not translated exactly." Mis-translation can occur in a particular, but it is also possible that no mis-translation occurred in another text containing the same material. Something you apparently do not consider. However that is false. "Pro cites some stories from the Bible as fact, i.e. the Creation story of Adam and Eve. However there is not a shred of scientific or historical evidence to validate the creation myth described in the Bible." The point was not made to establish if Adam and Eve were historical, you misquoted Genesis about the plants that was growing only in the garden of eden. "The difficulties with the story are insurmountable. The evidence from archaeology, palaeontology, human history, the fossil record, evolutionary biology, geology and physics all show us very clearly that the Earth, the solar system and the rest of the universe was created billions of years ago and not at all in accordance with the events listed in Genesis." I liked the way you refer to the universe are billions of years old. You are probably aware that that number changed a lot and it keeps on changing. Guess work is not scientific. The fossil record fails big time because (let me go out on a limb and assume there are really some intermediate found) you cannot prove the fossil had any babies. One fossil here or there does not proof anything and no fossil from one KIND to another KIND has been found as far as I know. "Not only that, but there are two Genesis creation stories - one at Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 and another in Genesis 2:4-25." Isee this a lot but it only shows you do not know the Bible very well. Genesis 1 is not te creation of Adam and Eve. Genesis 2 gives you the time Adam was created, and that was before the 5th day. Adam was told to stay in the Garden, the People in Genesis 1 was told to go out into the world. That's how Cain found his wife after he slew his brother in the land of Nod. "My opponent also mentions how some people could live to be 900 years old "before the fall of man" which again has not a shred of logical or scientific evidence to back it up." Again, the statement was made because you compared them with today's people when the Bible said it will not be like that. Since you believed in evolution, how long did humans, dinosaurs and other things live? Please give me a scientific exact number total that will not contradicted by another scientist. That's also a reason not to accept what scientists have to say. The Bible is a collection of manuscripts compiled by humans, not God. "There is no single, agreed-upon, authoritative Bible; rather, different sects of Christianity consider a wide variety of books to be Biblical canon." You are wrong again. The Protestants all accepted the Textus Receptus and Masoteric text as the true text. These texts are supported by Greek, Hebrew and many other texts translated into many other languages. Even the Roman Catholic pope accepted the TR when it was dedicated to him. I hold the TR and Jacob Ben Chayim Hebrew text to be the Bible. Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of the widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself are the results of both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes [6]. Therefore, the Bible is not reliable so much as convenient or intentionally manipulative." Most of the Greek manuscripts agree about 95% of the time and that includes the ones where most differences come from. Apart from the Bible, Jesus was always proclaimed to be the Christ by secular writers and the Church Fathers. The "people" and the Bible testify against Bart Ehrman. The Hebrew OT also proclaims the Trinity and Divinity of Jesus. Perhaps Bart erred. Consider the example of Mark 16. "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." There are only 2 Ancient witnesses. The Greek Manuscripts shear volume extant today contains the verses. You should check your facts. Even the Church Fathers quote the verses before the 2 "Ancient ones" was made. http://www.tgm.org... "Development of the New Testament canon is arbitrary." I believe it was Bart Ehrman's mentor, Bruce Metzger, said the Canon was confirmed by the people and councils and not decided. They confirmed what was already known.