ACt

Interesting debate. Overall, the initial argument is a series of examples of a common myth that has been borrowed, altered and skewed - the myth of Jesus being such a birth is often boiled down to a mistranslation or a bit of inspired writing to gain people's attention. To date, all the "evidence" for this being the case came after his death, so I am inclined to be very skeptical. That AND my extensive biology background providing evidence that it is impossible. Jesus sort of precedes in vitro fertilization.

There were a few other points here that I feel the need to address as well:

That's a very narrow definition of religion you have. Generally, religion is a series of beliefs, customs and morals that define humanity's place int he universe. Pagans had loads of those - they just tended to worship many gods and nature rather than one. Christians called a lot of people pagans, despite differences in their beliefs. It was just a term for "those who don't believe as we do." Much like European Settlers called Native Americans "savages."

Not quite true. Another attempt at monotheism was undertaken by the Pharoh Akhenaten, who banned all worship other than to the sun god Aten. It didn't work and his successor, Tutankhamen, reversed this ruling and Egypt reverted to polytheism. I mention this not to be a jerk, but rather to bring up the theory that both Atenism and Judaism, though dates are disputed, arose quite close to each other and along with many other Egyptian influences on Judaism, it is thought that there was some major influence from the brief worship of Aten. This serves as a root for all monotheisms of today, which are remarkably similar. It also demonstrates the flexibility of religion in adopting other ideas and molding to necessary states to gain purchase in the minds of the masses.

Which brings me to:

The bible is complete in one sense; in another sense, it is a haphazardly cobbling of ancient and "recent" texts designed to suit the type of morals, views and directions of a select few who wanted to propagate the Christian religion. The old testament borrows from Judaism, Paganism and goodness knows how many other stories, legends and myths. The new testament is a hand picking of any number of religious writings of the time. The classic example are the Gospels. Ever wonder why there are four? Well there aren't - there are many: other apostles (including Judas), various unknown sources of the time, Jesus and, although in debate, Mary Magdeline. Why a religion based on Jesus Christ's teachings would leave out any account of his life, including his own, is unfathomable.

Or, it is a case of a certain picture of what the religious leaders wanted at the time. Thusly, the bible can be considered complete, but more correctly as "selectively complete". It isn't a historical text because it was willfully piecemeal-ed together.

Add on the rest of the translations problems (one of which you pointed out yourself) and you have a historically flawed document that cannot be considered true. It can still be used to teach morals and ethics and is by no means an unimportant book (despite my belief that humanity could write a better text in a heartbeat), but it isn't not true.