Is the Bible's god good?

Focus izzy, focus.

You started out by saying 'my religion' was based on the bible and therefore hopelessly contradictory.

I then told you it isn't based on the bible and that the bible tells you not to look to it for the source of truth. I asked you to point out MY contradictions, not the bible's.

If you want to debate the bible, I can do that too. But I have no interest in details like genealogies, differences in eyewitness account details (they are always unreliable), how many animals on a boat, etc. The only thing worth debating is the meaning of the story and the principles involved. I don't give a fig for stuff like differences in the reported number of people at a certain gathering. For all I know, somebody could have left or arrived between the two accounts.

Focus indeed, you said you used the Bible to verify stuff. You can't have it both ways.

Are you saying that, to you, the Bible is like a theocratic Wikipedia, with interpretation subject to revision by any contributor, regardless of qualifications?

Well, you are not alone

Go back and look again. I said I sometimes go to the book to see if it agrees [with my view]. My view came first. It would be more accurate to say I am verifying the bible, not the other way around. That is consistent with what I (and the bible) said about the source of truth.

That's pretty good. I sometimes refer to the bible as the ultimate hint book but I think I like your version better.

Yeah, he's in company with the Jehovah's Witnesses what with their revisions by unqualified contributors.

Oh yeah, God qualified them.

I think I read.
He said he is not a JW, and
I have often posted that I am not a representative of the Watchtower Society. My assertions are not inerrant. However, I have posted an indirect link to the JW website in my profile.

When I witness face to face, I encourage folks to read in their own Bibles and make their own decisions. Nobody becomes a JW with eyes shut.

No, definitely not JW. If I was a member of any religion I wouldn't hide it. I will admit to having been kicked out of a few but JW was not one of them.

The bible is there for anyone to interpret or misinterpret. It wasn't even written by especially good people. There were all kinds of misfits involved. Homophobes, misogynists, misguided zealots, even killers. Its amazing that there is still a coherent story in it.

Heh.
I've was kicked out of the JWs about 25 years ago. But I finally got back in, although I certainly am not a prime example.

I didn't say Leadfoot was a JW. I said he was in company with, i.e. associated by similar interests.

Really? If you're not just talking about groups flying the 'God flag', point me at them! I've been looking hard and haven't found them.

Really if you were to take a serious look at the work put into this translation of the Scriptures you would find as do many serious Bible Scholars and historians, that it is a very accurate and reliable work. Being regarded as such even by those who do not favor Jehovah's Witnesses. Note what just a little research reveals below regarding the New World Translation.

Textual basis

The master text used for translating the Old Testament into English was Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. The Hebrew texts, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and Biblia Hebraica Quinta, were used for preparing the latest version of this translation. Other works consulted in preparing the translation include Aramaic Targums, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Samaritan Torah, the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, the Masoretic Text, the Cairo Codex, the Aleppo Codex, Christian David Ginsburg's Hebrew Text, and the Leningrad Codex.[32][33]

The Greek master text by the Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort (1881) was used as the basis for translating the New Testament into English. The committee involved in creating the New World Translation also referred to the Novum Testamentum Graece (18th edition, 1948) and to works by Catholic Jesuit scholars José M. Bover (1943) and Augustinus Merk (1948). The United Bible Societies' text (1975) and the Nestle-Aland text (1979) were used to update the footnotes in the 1984 version. Additional works consulted in preparing the New World Translation include the Armenian Version, Coptic Versions, the Latin Vulgate, Sixtine and Clementine Revised Latin Texts, Textus Receptus, the Johann Jakob Griesbach's Greek text, the Emphatic Diaglott, and various papyri.[32]

This is just but a sampling of the tremendous work that was put into this translation of the Bible text.

What are the credentials of the committee involved in creating the New World Translation?

Really, they are the same as any Bible Scholar who is interested in conveying in an accurate and clear way the true meaning of Bible texts. It must also be noted that when comparing this translation to many other well known versions, those who are pr0fessionals in this field of study state that although they may not agree entirely with the style of this translation, they view the quality and accuracy of this version to be worthy of note and serious consideration.

Oh dear.
What comes next?
Does the New World Translation not meet your standards for some reason? Perhaps we can use other translations subject to your approval.
Hmm. How about the KJV?

The JWs used the King James translation liberally for many years and used it to refute the hellfire and trinity doctrines. We've known for well over 100 years that the soul does not survive death.

Over thirty years in advance, the Watchtower Society told of a debacle that would overtake the world in 1914.

So now you're dodging this question as well.

I hear most of the Jdubs havent even been to sunday school.

Nah!
It's an irrelevant question.
A translation should be evaluated according to its veracity, not its pedigree.

Who's qualified to evaluate a translation according to its veracity?

And they presume to translate the Bible? What brass!