@heaterwc

"Thanks for your patience awaiting a response."

No worries, no hurries. :)
And thank you for the reply.

I don't mean to attack you in any way. I do however have a lot to say about your reply. I hope you don't take it personal. If I'm expressing my thoughts in a distasteful or rude way, please let me know so I can avoid it in the future.

If I may ask, what particular denomination of Christianity do you adhere to?

"I admit that there are many things about God that I do not know. In fact, I would be suspicious of any believer who claimed to know everything about God."

Here it would seem like you're abstaining from making knowledge claims about god. But my interpretation of the above quote from your reply is: "I don't know everything about God, but I do know some things. I would not be suspicious of other believers as long as they don't claim to know everything about God."
When I wrote "If believers were honest, they would not claim to know.", I meant "anything about god" rather than "everything about god".

"...for a believer the Bible is God's living, perfect word."

I know many Christian believers that would not agree with that description of the bible. I strongly suspect that when you use the words "we" and "believers", you only include those who believe in your particular flavour of Christianity. To me the word "believers" includes all variations and derivatives of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Scientology and so on.

"As I mentioned in an earlier post, the manuscripts included within the Bible contains much evidence including archaeological, historical, prophetic evidence as well as Biblically documented supernatural miracles."

I'm sorry, I haven't read the post you mention.
As far as evidence goes, there are some archaeological and historical evidence, but of course such evidence is only connected to strictly non-supernatural events. And just as the existence of the North Pole and reindeer provides no proof of legitimacy to the stories about Santa Claus, such proof does not apply to any of the supernatural claims of Christianity.

Proof of "prophetic evidence" have certainly gone past me without me noticing. What proof are you referring to? Remember that the same thing is said about other religious scriptures and other works like the prophecies of Nostradamus.
"Biblically documented supernatural miracles" - I don't even understand the phrase. Do you mean that the bible mentions miracles? If so, this is certainly not qualified as evidence in any way since all claims of supernatural nature in the bible completely lacks any support from other sources. It's just one questionable source with no corroboration.

"I will summarily state that we believe it to be God's perfect truth and God has revealed to us in it that He is eternal."

I understand that that is what you believe, but what makes you believe that?
Who told you that the bible is the true? Who told you to trust the bible and not some other religious scripture?
Every other religion has people who claim to be absolutely sure, without a shadow of a doubt, that their religion and their holy scriptures are true. And they have the same or similar reasons to claim that.

What would have happened if you would have been born and raised in a religious Muslim environment? Is it merely a coincidence that you happen to live in a place where the one true religion is practiced? (I'm assuming you do live where Christianity is the dominant religion). What makes the bible any more true than, for example, the Quran?

"I don't see where both the Big Bang Theory and God cannot co-exist as truth. I don't view science at odds with God."

That's good, I like that.

Regarding being honest about if you would accept the truth yourself:

"The short answer is yes. However, ..."

The word "however" says a lot here.
Why would you say "however" if you actually did think you would accept the truth "no matter where that truth leads us"?

I hope you will excuse me for saying that this, to me, is a clear sign of self delusion: Telling yourself that you would accept the truth, but at the same time giving yourself an escape clause. Since you have accepted Jesus Christ as your savior, you have received the Holy Spirit, and as such you already know the real truth, regardless if another truth is revealed?

"...the above statement disregards the supernatural element of being a follower of Jesus Christ."

I disagree, I can't see in what way it disregards that.

"Once someone accepts Jesus Christ as their savior, they receive the Holy Spirit which lives within their body (for a crude comparison, similar to a demonic possession - except it is God's Spirit who literally possesses the believer). It is the possession of the Spirit who imparts knowledge, wisdom and guidance into a believer that someone without the Spirit is not able to understand. It's the missing piece that so many non-believers find baffling. You have to experience it to understand it. Once the believer receives the Holy Spirit, he/she produces what we call the "fruits of the spirit" (Galatians 5:22-23)."

This kind of statement is a very typical claim from many religious people. Only once you fully submit and believe, you get "knowledge, wisdom and guidance" and "You have to experience it to understand it.".
People from all religions have such claims. They alone are the ones who are part of the group of the "initiated", the saved. They alone know the truth, they alone can fully understand.

What differs your claims of such nature from others who say the same things, but believe in other gods?

"Christianity should have died out immediately after Jesus' death. Jesus was "dead", so why risk spreading the good news when it would likely get you killed?"

This is the only argument that makes sense to me.
But throughout history, there has been no shortage of people who have been willing to kill as well as die for their religions. So I don't think that this is a big mystery at all.

"While ISIS is making headway overthrowing towns and killing Christians, the gospel is spreading like wildfire."

I would actually be happy to see that since Christianity is much more peaceful, but I find it very hard to believe.
Wildfire? Are you sure you're not exaggerating? Where did you get this information? I would be interested to read about it if there is any information about it.

"When given the choice between converting to Islam and death, they would rather choose death than deny Christ. This runs counter to basic human survivalist instinct, but that is the power of the Holy Spirit."

How does defiance until death in any way connect explicitly to the Holy Spirit?
Does a Buddhist monk setting himself on fire have the Holy Spirit? Does a terrorist suicide bomber have the Holy Spirit? A mass murdering school shooter? Such behaviour is nothing new and nothing exclusive for Christians, but you attribute it to the Holy Spirit anyway. Doesn't this make you think? Doesn't this reveal your bias towards Christianity?

"until one has experienced a personal relationship with Christ, it would be impossible to comprehend on anything but a purely intellectual level."

This hinges completely on your personal experience. And that, as far as I can see, is all there is for all believers of all religions. Unfortunately, even though they are part of that blessed group of initiated with special knowledge, no two believers can agree on how to describe god, what heaven is like, how to interpret specifics in their holy scriptures, and on and on.

I see a world full of billions of people trying to convince others that their personal belief, their individual flavour of religion, is the one that is true. I don't see a world with 2.2 billion Christians and 1.2 billion Muslims, I see a world with 2.2 billion versions of Christianity and 1.2 billion versions of Islam.
I see a world full of people who believe what they where influenced by others to believe in, despite the lack of proof, the lack of specifics and despite it being irrational.

Nowhere do I see anything giving any credence to any of these beliefs in supernatural gods or angels, souls, spirits and so on. And no one seems to be able to explain why they believe that their religion is the one that is true.

My main question remains "what makes you believe that?"
If the answer is something that has to be believed, the question again becomes, what makes you believe that?