If the Bible were to Be God's word; then it needs to be clear, authoritative, and inerrant.

I find Pro's premise 2 problematic because the Bible is not unclear because of how its written, but rather, because of the background beliefs of its readers. For God to make it more clear, would require men to have the same religious viewpoints and methods of approaching Scripture, which would call for his tampering with our freewill – the great gift he has given us which distinguishes us from animals. Gen 2:7 and 3:19 are very clear man was made from dust and returns to dust, which is confirmed whenever we see carcass rotting and returning to dust. Yet, the Christian Scientist don't believe people really die, and say this is merely an illusion. Why? Because the verses aren't clear? No, because their own religious background causes them to approach the text with their own preconceived notions. It is the biases men bring to the texts in question which causes much of the confusion, not the text itself. This happens also in other areas of life. Many conspiracy theorists and UFO groups don't believe man ever landed on the moon. Was it that NASA wasn't clear about the moon landing of Apollo 11? Heck, it was broadcasted live to millions of people, how much more clear can you get than that? But no matter how clear an event or a written record is, there will always be people who refuse to believe for one reason or another. So I don't think it's the Bible that is at fault, but the problem is with those interpreting it. God did make the texts he inspired sufficiently clear for us to grasp the meaning if we approach it with an open mind, and not with the intent of forcing our biased views into the texts. Pro illustrates his point with a 2-old-child not understanding the order not to play with matches because the parent wasn't clear, but what if the parent is clear and the child still burns the house down anyway? Being clear is no guarantee that people will obey just because they understand. We see this daily. Criminals know that murder, stealing, and selling illegal drugs is clearly against the law, yet they do it. So there is no need to compare us to kids. I have shown big adults what the Bible says, and they agree that it says such and such, and can see why I understand it in the way I do, but they choose not to take it literally for their own biased, irrational reasons. The problem isn't with the Bible, but the hearts and minds of those doing the interpreting are simply looking for texts to support their own beliefs instead of looking to see what the Bible says and conform their views to agree with that. Pro then mentions people ending up in hell because God told them in the Bible to do Y then not to do Y, so it gets confusing. I've never seen any case where the Bible touches on a matter that affects our salvation and is so unclear as to say ‘yes, Y,' and ‘no, not Y,' so I challenge Pro to show me where it does that. In fact, none of the verses Pro gave us contain, or appear to contain contradictions. Eph 2:8-9 agree with John 5:24 that it's by faith alone we are saved, not works. This is the undeserved kindness (grace) of God that we have such a privilege. John 3:5 doesn't say anything about "baptism," Pro assumed that "water" must mean baptism without contextual evidence, just another example of what I mean when I talk about people trying to force their own beliefs into the text to make them say what they aren't saying. The revelation of God is clear; it's the people that look for every opportunity to distort the message to make it say what they want it to say. James 2:17 doesn't contradict the previous verses cause it doesn't say we are saved by works, rather, that the type of faith which saves will be accompanied by works which prove such faith is genuine. At Matt 19:16-24 Jesus isn't teaching salvation by works, but was testing the man's motives. Notice in verses 20-21 keeping the commandments alone cannot get him to heaven. Jesus is saying, ‘keep the commandments to show your desire to enter life,' not that this will guarantee eternal life. Again, no contraction. John 3:16, belief, same as above. Mark 16:16 is an interpolation; it was not in the original as recorded by Mark. Matt 12:37 wasn't discussing salvation; Acts 2:21 is a quote from Joel 2:32 which talks about physical salvation from harm, not eternal salvation of the soul. It is obvious if you have faith in God you will have to hear about him and will call on him, nothing here contradicts that. Titus 3:5 agrees that it was by grace that God offered us a means of salvation, he didn't have to. No contradiction here either. None of the verses provided by Pro say that salvation is only open to a chosen few, but rather, that of the world of men called to salvation, only a few would choose it and hence be chosen by God to enter the kingdom of heaven. If Pro disagrees he can present his analysis of individual texts, but I have no space to do it here. Prov 16:4 says "The LORD works out everything for his own ends--even the wicked for a day of disaster." (NIV) This does not say God created men wicked in order to punish them. But even if a person believes that based on his interpretation of the verse, or his translation of it, this would not affect his salvation. The Bible doesn't have to be explicitly clear on matters not affecting salvation, for once we are saved, that's the most important thing. "Christians cannot agree on how to be saved!" The current geological and archeological evidence, as well as evidence obtained from examination of mitochondrial DNA shows clearly man has been on earth very long, and that the earth is very old, yet, people interpret the evidence differently, some arguing for a young earth and others holding to an old earth. Disagreements don't prove the evidence isn't clear, just that the folks in question are very skeptical even of good evidence, or very biased. This disagreement among Christians doesn't prove the Bible to be unclear. "There is also confusion about the role of women." There is disagreement in churches about homosexuality, yet, the Bible is explicitly clear that this practice is sinful and unnatural. (Rom 1:26-27; Lev 19:22) Just because people reject clear evidence doesn't mean the evidence isn't clear. Since Pro is an atheist, I'd like him to tell us: does the fact that Christians remain Christians despite the evidence showing them that their God doesn't exist, and that their Bible is filled with errors, contradictions, and failed prophecies, prove that the evidence against Christianity and in favor of atheism is unclear? Or does it just mean we Christians are hard-headed? If the evidence isn't clear one way or the other (atheism vs Christianity) you can't argue that we shouldn't believe in our God. But the evidence for atheism is as good as you claim, yet we aren't convinced, it just goes to prove my point that difference of belief doesn't prove the evidence isn't clear, hence, the Bible isn't necessarily unclear anymore than the evidence for atheism is. I understand your evidence, I simply choose to reject it; just as I understand the Jehovah's Witness and SDA interpretation of Scripture but choose to reject it. The Bible ain't the problem, its us. Acts 1:18-19 could be an interpolation by Theophilus (Acts 1:1) which occurred at such an early date it appeared in all manuscripts, or, Judas could have hanged himself, but the branch of the tree hanging over the cliff where he hanged broke, so that his body bounced off lower limbs or rocks and plunged head first into the ground. In either case, we don't need to know how Judas died to be saved. The Bible is explicitly clear on hell being a literal place, but again, none of this affects salvation, or other important matters like how to treat our neighbors. God's original manuscript of the Bible could not have errors in it, but that doesn't mean errors couldn't creep in through years of transmission. I'm out of space, I'll finish my reply in the next round.