the bible = not infallible

Well I can see your debate strategy is to throw a lot of examples at me that seem bad, and hence making me spend my efforts to defend them all which would spread my argument out very thinly as I have little room to play my role as con and refute the question that the bible is not infallible. In any case your examples rely on winning votes emotionally, using pathos. You want people to look at these examples and just be disgusted and vote for you. But I'm going to debate this not according to your neat trap but through my way. You claim that the bible is not infallible. Yet you provide no evidence that it is wrong, once again all you do is try to capture the hearts of the voters by providing many examples that seem bad and most of them out of context anyway. So I am not going to refute any of your examples. What I will say is this. For the people to believe in the bible they have to believe that the bible came from god. In order to believe that the bible came from god, they obviously must believe in a god. But where do they get the idea that god exist? Outside of the bible how do people even know about god? The answer to that is that, it is embedded within us the notion that there is a god. The difference is how we respond to that. Every atheist must make the decision to deny that a god exist, but he has to first come from the standpoint that there is a god or there could be a god. Even if a person is raised by atheist , the parents at one point would have to ‘correct' the child in his natural assumption that there is a god. Some people pursue the notion and find answers in many different religions. The bible is one answer to that notion, or that natural assumption that there is a higher being. Now why is the bible infallible and not science?, and not Islam? and not Buddhism? Why can't the bible share infallibility with another religious text. Well religions are mutually exclusive all of them. Because at one point there is going to be a contradiction between the two religions. If there wasn't a contradiction between them at one point they wouldn't be two separate religions. Science is not infallible because it is constantly changing, and constantly updating , and constantly being corrected, and that something that every scientist will tell you. Now this isn't to mean that all of science is wrong. But that science doesn't have the credentials to NEVER be wrong. You can cancel out most religions the same way. If a religion ever changes its text then how can we establish that it is credible to be infallible that it is credible to be seen as NEVER wrong. The very fact that the da-li-lamba witnesses changes in Buddhism to go in accordance with obvious contradictions to the natural world takes away its credibility to be infallible. But The bible is unique in that its pure 66 book version form it has never been changed. It has been translated, yes, because people like me cannot speak Hebrew and Greek . But we do have access to the original Hebrew and Greek texts, and the 66-book bible is 99.9% in accordance with the same original texts that are millennia old, it has not been changed, the .01% error is only due to the translation. That is why the bible is infallible and that is why the bible stands out from all text and even text books as to being the most credible for infallibility.