Full of contradictions...?

Someone suggested to me today that the burden of proof with regards to internal contradictions in the Bible is on Christians. I don't see that it can be, since the it is an impossible case to proove that the Bible is error-free (unless we take our proof from the Bible which probably wouldn't go down well), but would be easy to proove contradictions if they exist. However, the burden of proof is to find solutions to any apparant Bible difficulties which are pointed out, so I am glad that through the centuries all questions against the consistancy of the Bible have been answered. We can't be sure - as Grudem says - that there aren't other problems which haven't yet been brought to our attention, but the idea that that point can be used to dispute the inerrancy of the Bible does seem a little silly.

All of this is really by way of introduction to this link, where Jay Smith and others answer a list of "101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible", which were compiled by Shabbir Ally. I've found that it's a useful resource in understanding parts of the Bible which might seem tricky at first glance. (I wouldn't suggest reading it straight through, as the shear number means it starts to get boring around 20!)

Inerrancy

I'm excited that it looks like I'm going to get up the first post on this chapter. Unfortunately I have very little that profound to say. It seems: the original documents were inerrant, what we have is at least 99% the same as the originals therefore what we have is at least 99% inerrant. Cool!

There was other stuff, but nothing that really jumped out at me. How about you?