While I agree with most of this post of Ken Ham, I would have to say that while it's a common claim, the assertion that atheism inherently leads to moral nihilism (the belief that morality is meaningless) is not universally accepted. Atheists hold diverse views on morality, with some maintaining that morality is subjective and others arguing for objective moral principles derived from humanism, reason, or social constructs.

However, I would have to agree that I have never seen a good argument against the Bible. There are some that don't even read the Bible then claim to know what it says and those that only read one verse without taking the rest of the context and chapter into consideration, are naturally prone to thinking there are contradictions in the Bible. There are not.

But your same argument can be used to argue for the truth of Islam. Just replace "Bible" with "Koran" throughout. That book also addresses right and wrong .

What brought me back to God years ago was not debates or logical proofs. I doubt whether that ever converts many people.

When I opened the Bible with a hunger in me, then the words burned within me .

The Bible is incomplete, you can thank the Catholic Church for that and most of the other denominations don't know much about the other books that Catholic Church decided not to include when all the books were put compiled to make the Bible... The last book, Revelations, was just based on prophetic dreams some have come true....@LadyGrace

Other than the 2500 factual errors it contains and the obvious bits of plagiarisms from other sources of bronze-age silliness it’s a pretty good bit of speculative fiction from a time when people thought the world was flat and had corners.

I have a position that cannot be denied. My perspective is that the bible is invalid. Sure it is relateable, but given it is more than 30 years old it is entirely unreliable based on the legal statute of limitations; which is 30 years.
Therefore whether true or not it is unverifiable. Also when considering the fantastical nature of many of the stories and lack of cross reference. It is a "good argument" "against" the bible. Furthermore it has been translated so many times from arameic from hebrew to latin from italian. From italian to english. With several more languages in between.

It has been compiled over a number of centuries by a diverse group of men, who may conceivably have misinterpreted or misrepresented God's Word.

The Bible warns of skeptics and non-believers, even warns that Christians will fall away.

The Bible says the ruler of this world is blinded the eyes of them that they believe is not, it is as it is, choices are made.

When the whole world see him coming from the clouds with his angels they will be screaming alien invasion because they don't know who he is. And with the invention of the television, telephone / cell phone, then the computer and internet the whole world will see him, except those in extremely remote places without such technology which is very few.

It was plagarized from the Greek mythical character gilgamesh and more obviously from ancient Persia's zorarathustra. So plagarism is a strong argument against the bible being reliable.

I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a more obvious use of circular logic.

How about the Bible's support of slavery? Is it moral to own another human being?

It's alright to own slaves, but not to covet them.

There is no good argument for the bible.

It is a book of collected myths that is full of internal contradictions and just plain silly stuff. Why people take it seriously in the modern world is one of life's great mysteries.

It is without doubt the source of much pain and suffering in this world.

Yes. A book isn’t true because it says in the book that it is true.

No. Because everyone sees the Biblical Prophecies coming to pass now.

Religion is a matter of faith. You seem to be looking for factual evidence.