@Xenophon >If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I'm okay with that, but what nobody CAN do is tell me that my position is not consistent. It doesn't make a lie out of the bible, where his position does.
Your position is consistent within the interpretation you use, but the quality of that is what people take issue with. Your hermeneutics are not standard, and the burden is on you to convince others why we are wrong rather than expecting us to trust you. Links and citations which support your belief are useful in supporting your hermeneutics, but they will not convince on their own. That is what you are missing — you cannot simply provide what you feel is self-evident given the circumstances, when it should be grounds for a proper argument. You have not made a sufficient argument that has convinced me. Grounds ≠ argument.

>If I can just quote counter verses to whatever he says, then whose verse do you trust? The bible cannot contradict itself.
It doesn't contradict itself. This is why hermeneutics are important, and it's why reading books verses in the context of the whole chapter and book is important. Frankly it's also why the old tradition of gatekeeping scriptural interpretation was valuable, as even if it bore some corrupt fruits it likely mitigated cancerous levels of heresy.