Due to time constraints, I will have to cut this reply short.

I'm surprised Pro again asks if I've read the Bible. I ask Pro: if I didn't read the bible, would that make your arguments more true or false? Of course not. The truth in Pro's arguments, and my arguments too, do not depend on whether or not I have read the bible. Too many times I have seen a Christian dismiss an atheist's argument not because the atheist's argument was wrong, but because the atheist had not read the bible. Of course, if Pro is curious, I am happy to talk about my past with Christianity, including my experience with the bible, after the debate.

Pro writes: "So I wasn't factually incorrect with this passage, at this time they didn't think the earth was round." He is still wrong. Pro has to prove two things. First, must prove that it was "common knowledge" that the earth was flat at the time. Secondly, and most importantly, since the Bible was completed after Pathagoreas' time, Pro has to prove that the book was not edited to fit the new theory before it was written in the bible.

I wrote, "People saw that nothing held up the moon and sun, and furthermore, no one would have seen anything holding up the Earth," and Pro responds, " No evidence is given for this argument. It could have been just as plausible, actually more likely that they didn't notice this since for a while they thought the earth was held up by elephants or a man called Atlas."

This is again a case where Pro simply has not done his research. The Greeks believed that Atlas held up the sky, not the Earth, and I note that in Greek mythology, the Earth is held up by nothing. The elephant theory was a Hindu idea, and Pro would have to prove these Hindu ideas were common at the place and time Isiah was written. Since Hinduism is an Indian religion, I doubt he will succeed.

Pro also cites my lack of evidence. Essentially, Pro misunderstands the purpose of evidence. when I ask Pro to cite sources, I mean that Pro needs to make sure his claims are factually true before making then. In my case, there is little need for to prove common sense claims. If Pro wants evidence that people could "see that nothing held up the moon and sun," he only needs to go outside.

Since we are nearing the end of the debate, instead of addressing all of Pro's other arguments one by one, I now claim that Pro is making wide leaps in his arguments, and I claim he does so for every example he has cited. Given the number of errors Pro has already made, this is plausible. I think it is not a good debate for Pro to simply list as many examples as he can find. So, in the interest of time, for the last round, I ask Pro to pick only two of the best examples of the bible being miraculously ahead of his time, and (hopefully) cite sources for those. This way we can give attention to the most important examples. Quality over quantity.