Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions

Hi purpledawnI don't like to second guess Blzebub's position, but I would have thought it was obvious that he was trying to establish that the Bible is not the literal word of a single being (God) but that it is clearly a compilation of articles written by various people with different mindsets or agendas. Or even if it did once contain a perfectly consistent message, it has been miscopied or mistranslated so many times that nobody can be sure what the original message was meant to be.Whatever the reason for the contradictions and discrepancies, the result is the Bible does not convey a wholly clear and consistent message, and that means it does not deserve the position of infallible authority that it is granted by so many.By the way, it does make me laugh when so many people try to justify questionable sections of the Bible by saying, "Oh, that bit was a mistranslation from the Hebrew or the Greek". Well, why the **** doesn't somebody correct that translation? How many thousands of years do you need to do so?

I'm not sure, and don't really care, what the difference is between infallible and inerrant in this context. I think the proposed topic was very simple and straightforward, and you've tried quite successfully to muddy the waters.You mention context as justifying certain inconsistencies in the Bible. But that's never done in preaching, and I think that was at least partly what Blzebub was trying to get at.You never hear a preacher saying "the Bible says this, but in certain circumstances you must do completely the opposite." Oh no! They keep any inconsistencies or relevant contexts well hidden from their stupid flock.You never hear a preacher saying "it's morally wrong to work on the Sabbath, unless you're a Greek".

I didn't respond to every point in your message for a number of reasons. Firstly, unfortunately I don't have a great amount of web-time, so I can't go into every single point that is raised. Secondly, I think you've tried to cloud the whole issue by raising too many points anyway. Thirdly, you referred to points you had raised in discussion with Blzebub, to whom I have left the option of responding.However, I did choose to comment on the point that YOU raised under this topic about contexts, because I think that it was a valid point to raise under this topic - but apparently YOU now think that is going off topic!