The Bible does not contradict itself

I. What is the devinee evidence? What about please convince me? As for my sources, specifically for this point, in R3 I used three peer-reviewed sources that counter your claim. Also, my atheistic sources simply point out the contradictory Bible verses. First, source number 1 in R3, and second, "Josephus says that Varus was governor of Syria at Herod's death and Varus is indeed indicated as such in 4 B. C. by coins. [14] The problem, pointed out by Martin, is that the coins also show Varus was governor in 6 and 5 B. C. , whereas Josephus indicates that Saturninus was governor for the two years preceding Herod's death. [15] Martin's solution is that an inscription found near Varus' villa, which describes a man who was twice governor of Syria, probably refers to Varus. If so, his second term could well have been about 1 B. C. , when there is no record of anyone else as governor. [16]"[1] "Two historical events, the census of Quirinius and the death of Herod, separated from each other by a decade, were presented in the gospels as contemporaneous. "[2] As for the place, "According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). ""Both Matthew and Luke say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew quotes Micah 5:2 to show that this was in fulfillment of prophecy. Actually, Matthew misquotes Micah (compare Micah 5:2 to Matthew 2:6). Although this misquote is rather insignificant, Matthew's poor understanding of Hebrew will have great significance later in his gospel. Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea for the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23). In order to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, Luke says that everyone had to go to the city of their birth to register for the census. This is absurd, and would have caused a bureaucratic nightmare. The purpose of the Roman census was for taxation, and the Romans were interested in where the people lived and worked, not where they were born (which they could have found out by simply asking rather than causing thousands of people to travel). "[3] Now, why does Luke say that Quirinius was a "hegemon" and "governor if you claim they are two different things. You are trying to close one contradiction by exposing another. Also, "hegemon" means, "A person, nation, etc. . that has or exercises hegemony [which means] leadership, predominance"[4] Does it sound like Quirinius is a subordinate in the ruling of Syria? As for the final verse, my opponent does not refute anything. He hasn't refuted that Matthew claims that Jesus was greeted with anger, while Luke claims he was greeted with honor. II. II. i. "His tender mercies are over ALL his works. " This means all works. God cannot be selective. II. ii. First, if god is a man of war, he clearly means war. Yet he constitently says that he is always peaceful. This is a contradiction. Second, if the lord always gives peace (2 Thess 3:16), explain this, "2 Chronicles 15:13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. "[5] Clearly this is live (not supernatural). And finally, how can God teach war yet teach peace? II. iii. My opponent pretty much drops this. I have refuted his claims above. Readers, please look at my argument here in R3. III. Yes they do. They say he "gave up the ghost", meaning he died right after what the three gospels say in each of those three passages. This means that he died right after saying it, which the three gospels confuse. That is pretty much the same as saying those were his last words. IV. If God is omnipotent (which the Bible says) how can he be wrong? So, his word cannot be wrong, but it is. " This yet again remains unrefuted. " V. " God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33). But the book he authored his created confusion. This is a contradiction. This also yet again (I'm getting tired of the dropped arguments) remains unrefuted. " Sources: [1]:". http://www.johnpratt.com... [2]:". http://rejectionofpascalswager.net... [3]:". http://www.infidels.org... [4]:". http://dictionary.reference.com... [5]:". http://www.guidetosalvation.com...