The Bible is free of contradiction

In my final round, I would like to take a brief overview of the debate, and give the best case for the remaining supposed contradictions. My opponent has once again conceded her Second, Third*, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth claims. My opponent has conceded to 13 of her 16 claims (setting aside the supposed contradictions for this round). I shall answer my opponents rebuttals and new contradictions in numerical order. 1. Does God Change? Firstly, I would like to apologize. I was not understanding my opponents' thoughts on the changing of one's mind. With the definition given, it seems to me that the texts that my opponent uses to support her contradiction do not line up with the definition that she gives. The verse that my opponent gives is Genesis 6:6, which says that God regretted having made Man. However, when we read further on, we see that this may be anthropomorphismThe LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubledIt talks about God's heart, but the authors knew their God was immaterial. I say that it is reasonable to assume that the regret of God is simply a way to express God's disappointment with humanity in a context where humans can understand. If my opponent would wish to say that since God was proud of Man in one time and offended in another, that this signifies a change of opinion....keep in mind that God later sends the flood, which preserves Man to righteousness. God's feelings on Man had not changed, for God saved man. This text makes better sense as one where it attempts to give God the human quality of regret. Thus God is not actually changing his mind about the goodness of man. 2. The Ten Plagues of EgyptThe source given was very informative, and after surfing around I found that it was from the author's actual book, which can be found in link "1". It has no reviews and the book itself is two decades old. However, as I read the portions where Marr and Mallory are mentioned, I see their work to be extremely unlikely. Their entire premise is that a type of algae killed fish, which turned the water a color of blood red. The algae growth also helps in changing the color of the water. My answer to the death of fish contributing in any way to the color of the longest river in the world can be summed up in link "2". But I won't hold that against them. Let us specifically concern ourselves with the algae, as it most likely contributes the most to the color. Now, the specific dinoflagellate which is referred in the link my opponent gives is Pfiesteria. Oddly enough, only one species of this genus produces toxins that are harmful to fish. That species is Pfiesteria piscicida. (See link "3")So now the river turning red is due to a specific species of a specific dinoflagellate. Even further still, the toxic effects of this species only works for two to five days (See link "4")So now the river turning red is due to a specific species of a specific dinoflagellate of which the toxic effects last for a maximum of five days, thus invalidating Exodus 7:25: Seven days passed after the Lord had struck the Nile.Even if there was some sort of super-strand of this dinoflagellate which could survive a week, my opponent has not given enough good evidence to suppose that this is what happened. Even if Exodus 7:25 didn't exist, my opponent has not given enough good evidence to suppose that this is what happened. 3. The Eighth Commandment. My opponent claims that the Israelites asking for jewels after the ninth plague is akin to someone asking for something under threat. This is simply false, as the verse clearly reads that God puts His people in favor with the Egyptians. Exodus 3:21 reads:And I will cause the Egyptians to look favorably on you. They will give you gifts when you go so you will not leave empty-handed. There is no threat here, God wills the hearts of the Egyptians to be kind towards the Israelites, paying them recompense for their many years of slave labor. 4. David's SinThis one stumped me the longest. However, I found a verse that explains it. 1 Chronicles 21:1 reads: Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel.As you can see, Satan was the one whom compelled David to do this evil. Now, with that, the question becomes "So was it God or Satan?" Well, just like in many other places in The Bible, God allows Satan to act in order for God to achieve a greater purpose. God allows Satan to entice David, so that when David sins his faith in God will increase and he will be a better king for it. 5. JudasWow, this takes me back. I think this might have been the first contradiction I ever answered. Judas hung himself, and his corpse fell a few days later. Due to the climate of that area, the body had decomposed to a point where when it hit the ground, it split open around the stomach, spilling his guts. Also, Judas did not die in the field. He threw the money into the Temple, which was then used on his behalf to buy a field. Conclusion: I would once again like to thank my opponent for a respectful, intelligent, and elegant debate. I will ask that my opponent to refrain from giving any new contradictions, as I will be unable to respond to them. I also hope that anyone reading this dialogue came out of it with a better understanding of The Bible. Thank You, and God Bless. Sources: 1. http://www.amazon.com...2. 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://pubs.acs.org... *Con had already conceded to the Third claim, on the basis of a dramatized writing.