The Bible does not contradict itself

Thank you Ron-Paul for the response. I. Allow me to point out that your source is skeptical Atheist blogs for everything mentioned there. It seems as though your quote that "the literal meaning is 'this was the first census taken, while Quirinius was governor...'" is in fact the one misinterpreting this, rearranging the words, and adding punctuation. As I previously said (and sourced), many scholars say that Quirinius was probably governor on two separate occasions. And since my side of the argument is written in ancient text and widely accepted, and you have accepted BOP, unless you can prove that it's IMPOSSIBLE that Quirinius was governor twice, once during Herod's death, and from a reliable, unbiased source (not an atheistic website), then my argument holds. As for the second part, I have not refuted it because you just used one short passage when you're saying the two contradict. You have to include both passages and quote which part contradicts, otherwise, I don't see the contradiction. II. II.i. To respond to your quote: "Critics often ask how God can be both a God of mercy and judgment. Though God is absolutely merciful when we are willing to accept His mercy, He is also a just God who promises consequences for sin. Throughout the Bible we see the wicked being warned before judgment occurs. Only after they refused to come to repentance did God send judgment. Modern Analogy: Imagine one of your loved ones being brutally murdered. The perpetrator is arrested and found guilty by a jury. Now imagine the criminal in a hands of a judge who releases him without issuing any sentence. Would this be considered just? Would this even be considered mercy? Not in the opinion of the victim's family or anyone with half a brain! In short, mercy and judgment are not necessarily mutually exclusive." [1] II.ii. My opponent is trying to make it seem that I am manipulating the next or substituting words. However, on the issue of "warrior" vs. "man of war": First of all, many translations say "warrior" [2] so we are both right in that sense. But for the sake of this argument let's use my opponent's translation. "Man of War" is defined as "a warrior" [3]. So my argument still stands. II.iii. I did touch your arguments. Instead of copy and pasting the same exact thing I said in II.i., I've summed up this and many other "contradictions" that you could claim in one place. So, the same argument I HAVE made still stands. I've JUST gone over the same verse in II.i., so judges, please refer to that. III. contradict - to imply the opposite or a denial of [4] Just because Matthew and Luke include Jesus giving up the ghost, yet John does not, doesn't mean it is a contradiction. The gospels did not include the same thing, otherwise, there'd be no purpose in having the 4 books. So judges, decide on this issue; is John's absence of that part implying the opposite or a denial of Matthew and Luke's part? IV. ". . . Because, according to theists . . ." That's not the point of this debate. That's not the Bible contradicting itself. You cannot claim the Bible contradicts an outside source under the resolution statement. V. I will repeat myself once more. When the Bible was written in a different language thousands of years ago, I'm sure it was very straightforward. Now, through changing times and translations, it is interpreted in every which way. Besides, this point doesn't argue the resolution directly. There are not multiple verses that oppose each other here. Judges, this cannot be regarded as a contention. I thank my opponent and look forward to his response. Judges, I thank you for your unbiased view. Sources: [1]: http://www.thedevineevidence.com... [2]: http://bible.cc... [3]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4]: http://www.merriam-webster.com...