Resolved: The Bible as we have it today contains no errors of consequence

My apologies, in light of a busy schedule, I find that I will very possibly not have time to post my arguments. As is, it is almost hours away. Rebuttal 1: Genealogies of JesusSo, the first objection is due to seeming inconsistencies between the lists. [1] Matthew’s list is actually a selection of names, as evidenced by his use of “begat.” It is intended to be incomplete. This is the complete opposite of Luke’s “son of.” Matthew traced the paternal line through Solomon, Luke, the maternal line. The two chronologies intersect at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, but separate after. Joseph was at the end of the paternal, and Mary, the maternal, lines. Joseph is the direct descendant of David. So is Mary. This establishes that Joseph, and as such Jesus, is heir to the throne. (For an explanation of Joseph son of Heli, see ref. 1. I’m not going into it.)We will not care about genealogical contradictions, of which there is none. They are of no consequence as my opponent has pointed out. So, what does 2 Sam. 7:12 say?“When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.” (ESV)Who was this addressed to? David. Did it mention Solomon in any way? No. This means that all the Messiah has to be is to be a descendant of David. Which Jesus is. Conclusion: The main crux of Con’s argument is that Jesus is not the Messiah because he is not from Solomon. As the verse shows, the promise was not to Solomon, but to David. This is thus not a contradiction of any kind, either minor or of consequence. It is, rather, a misconception due to a misunderstanding on the part of the reader. Rebuttal 2-3: The Last Supper and the Cruxifiction DateThere are two interesting ways to consider this. I will expound on both. 1st: It is not a contradiction![2] This argument basically harmonizes the four gospels and takes into account the fact that no lamb was present at the meal described by the three gospel writers. As it is integral to the meal, they most certainly would have mentioned it. “The simplest solution, and the one assumed in this commentary, is that Jesus, knowing that he would be dead before the regular time for the meal, deliberately held it in secret one day early....Of course it was strictly incorrect to hold a "Passover" at any time other than the evening of Nisan 14/15 [that is, at the end of the 14th and beginning of the 15th], but Jesus was not one to be bound by formal regulations in an emergency situation!....It was therefore a Passover meal in intention, but without a lamb [page 365].” (Commentary of Matthew in the Tyndale New Testament series, by R. T. France as quoted in [2])This shows that strictly speaking, the Last Supper was not a passover meal. It would also mean that He was crucified at the same time as the slaughter of the lambs.2nd: If it is a contradiction, it is of no consequence.This is of no consequence because no command was given to hold the Last Supper. It is merely tradition held by the Church. Is this a shocker? To some, maybe. So we can see from this, easily, that the commands given by Christ is not put into any doubt by this. Why? This is because the commands given there is to serve one another, and to love one another. The other command is to keep the Lord’s Supper, which is different from the Last Supper. Conclusion: It can be quite clearly seen from this that the contradiction is both not a contradiction or of consequence. Rebuttal 4: The Triumphal EntryI need not quote the Scriptures for this. This is not even a contradiction. It is not a contradiction: Technically, Jesus did find the donkey. He did it through His disciples by tasking them with getting it for Him. It is evident from all versions that the disciples got both the mother and the colt. It is also evident that Jesus sat on the colt only. This is an example of the many times that the Gospel writers emphasized different parts of the story, giving us a most detailed account of the life of the Messiah, which would not have happened if there was only one mutually inclusive account.In general conclusionThe first contradiction is a result of shallow scholarship. (No offence)The second and third contradiction is the result of a lack of harmonization. The fourth contradiction is not even a contradiction.Please bring up actual contradictions in the next round. 1. http://www.apologeticspress.org...2. http://www.gci.org...