Tangible evidence is relative to the individual perception, so what is your argument? Or are you merely stating an opinion again and you have no argument in this debate forum?
"The bible, and the god character in the bible, is a work of fiction created by man to try and explain the world around them, because they lacked the scientific evidence to form an objective view"
Maybe that was an objective view, it just wasn't in the scientifically indoctrinated terms of your liking. Scientific evidence is merely systematic knowledge, the Torah contains systematic knowledge, also known as science. How is that fiction? How are the laws fiction? The fiction explanation is totally contradictory to the non-historical information in the Bible. Is a recipe for bread fiction?
"Word History: Occasionally, a word can have contradictory meanings. Such a case is represented by sanction, which can mean both "to allow, encourage" and "to punish so as to deter." It is a borrowing from the Latin word sānctiō, meaning "a law or decree that is sacred or inviolable." In English, the word is first recorded in the mid-1500s in the meaning "law, decree," but not long after, in about 1635, it refers to "the penalty enacted to cause one to obey a law or decree." Thus from the beginning two fundamental notions of law were wrapped up in it: law as something that permits or approves and law that forbids by punishing. From the noun, a verb sanction was created in the 18th century meaning "to allow by law," but it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that it began to mean "to punish (for breaking a law)." English has a few other words that can refer to opposites, such as the verbs dust (meaning both "to remove dust from" and "to put dust on") and trim (meaning both "to cut something away" and "to add something as an ornament")."
Words can be contradictory, that can be part of their nature. I consistently find contradictions from anti-christians on this forum, is this what you mean by liquid truth?
Here is another contradicting statement.
"Perhaps support for those engaging in war is a better term, (we see today many nations claiming the support of god in warfare)."
How do we know that the Bible supports the wars of today? Is support for true defense contradictory to "Thou shalt not murder"?
"Liquid truth, to me, simply means that there is no absolute truth, truth changes, what was considered true at one stage in history, may not necessarily be considered true at another. What is true for one person, is not necessarily true for another. Examples of this are everywhere. Truth can change when more knowledge is gained, more evidence discovered etc."
When truth changes what does its old meaning become? A lie?
Do you have an example that is supposedly "everywhere", of this liquid truth?
What is your definition of reality?
If truth can change from knowledge and evidence discovered, then how was it ever truth in the first place?
That last statement is contradictory, because a fact is a fact, not was a fact.
Contradictions abound when the truth is liquid. And if that is the case then your whole argument of the Bible being contradictory is impotent by the very nature of the meanings you apply to such words.