betsy

If you're lazy to engage and cite specific contradictions, then there's nothing to discuss between you and I. You're afraid to make a mistake in citing, Michael?

Well, no. That would be like you saying the written rules in this forum is inconsistent since members have varying views about trolling! It's not the forum rules that's inconsistent. That's the analogy that comes to mind. The message in the Bible has not changed, the same way that the forum rules about trolling has not.

You're still missing the message, Moonlight. Watch the video again. Different religion or religion sects doesn't have anything to do with this. Even non-believers can still be good WITHOUT BELIEVING in God. The question is: can we be good WITHOUT GOD! Big difference. The point is: unless we have a reference point, there wouldn't be any "good" or "bad" as we UNIVERSALLY know it! What's good or bad is "instinctive" in us....our conscience pricks at us.......because it's coded in us! Dogs behave in what we say are "good" behaviours - but they can also behave in what we say are "bad" behaviours. But does the animal know what is good or bad? Does the dog feel any remorse after mauling a baby to death? Does a cat feel any remorse after killing a bird for no reason? Without God - if we're all the product of evolution, Dawkins says we're all just going to be pitiless and indifferent. He gives the sufferings in this world as the proof that there could be no God! But, with his observation...... Dawkins had demonstrated he is not at all pitiless, and indifferent to sufferings. In fact, he cited the sufferings in this world as the one, if not the main reason, why he'd lost his faith in God! Dawkins had unwittingly given himself as an example - and proven, that we are not a product of evolution!

Either you didn't watch the video in the OP........or this discussion is way over your head.

Definition of inerrancy : exemption from error : infallibility

It depends on how you view the message in the Bible. The message is consistent, whether you're consistent with how you accept it or not. I don't get "there is no "Christian definition" for consistent."

If you're not going to be serious about this thread, I'll have to ignore you. Philosophical discussion isn't for everyone.

Is kindness good or bad??

Moonlight, watch the video so you and I will be on the same page.

If you guys don't know of any specific contradiction....maybe I'll just have to get some from cited "contradictions" in those sites, and refute them here.

I'm not talking about wikipedia, Michael. Cite a contradiction in the Bible!

You're aping an ape. You're saying the ape is superior to you! You're the type who just apes what he sees. Okay. Maybe, you should let that ape be the one to post for you?

Which brings us right back to the topic! Folks, please let's discuss the Bible in the thread created for it. Where did your moral code come from?

Who cares. This is not about what they think. It's about what we can support with reason, or prove.

Several anti-Christian sites had given up a list of contradictions. Some of you probably have one or two that you think are contradictions. Let's talk about them. Although sometimes the answer isn't that simple, let's try to clear up the misconceptions - because that's usually what they are. There are no contradictions in the Bible.

The reason I don't want to talk about specific contradictions, is because I'll create a separate topic for it. I'll start it now, for you.

Well, it's not what's written in it. It's how they view or take it! Some Christians don't even believe in the deity of Christ! But that doesn't mean it's the Bible that's inconsistent! The message in the Bible - from Old Testament to the New.....is consistent. It speaks of the Messiah, all the way to the fulfillment of that prophecy - which means that Christ had died for us - and it's about salvation and God's love for us. The inconsistency is not in the message of the Bible - it's in the way these groups had taken it.

We're not talking about contradictions in the Bible. BUT.....alleged contradictions in the Bible will make for an interesting thread. I'm sure you guys have lots of "contradictons" to cite. One of these days, I'll create that topic.

KJV has the highest rank of agreement with Nestle-Aland. Though there may be some variants, key doctrines are not affected. Since the reliability of the Bible is being questioned (due to many translations), that's good to know. What is Nestle-Aland? Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's not assume that ALL translations are Biblical. They're not. Just because a book calls itself the Bible does not necessarily mean that everything in it is Biblical. There are books that pass themselves as Bibles but some of the fundamental message are revised to suit whatever doctrine they believe. Now, those are no longer the Word of God. I know it's confusing to know which Bibles are reliable for accuracy. Read more at: The most accurate Bible translation