There are no contradictions in the bible

To begin, I apologize for my lack of knowledge on Christianity. College has not allowed me to have the time to fill up the missing gaps of information I have; I'm purely debating and not doing any research so as to save time. Let's begin. -----Content----- o Definitional Observations o Arguments o Sources o PS (for my opponent) ------------------- o Definitional Observations My opponent attempts to, several times, sidestep my arguments by jumping around to different sects of Christianity and different versions of the bible. His burden in this round as pro is to prove the resolution true, the resolution being "There are no contradictions in the bible." The bible was defined in round 1 as "the sacred writings of the Christian religions"; this went unrefuted. Thus, my opponent has to defend ALL the sacred writings of ALL the Christian religions; if he was to invalidate any single version such as the NIV it is his burden to do so. Meanwhile, my arguments will remain valid. Moreover, as a contradiction is "a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions", my opponent encounters yet another problem. Different version of the bible represent different "propositions" for translations, and my opponent claims that the bible is a "collection of books". Thus, if there is an incompatibility between any different versions of the bible it is STILL my opponents burden to defend them; sidestepping them won't work in this debate. It may have if he participated in the provision and debate of definitions, but it is too late to do that. o Arguments 1. Scientific "Theistic evolution" is my opponents first response to this. He doesn't go into detail but he says that they believe both in evolution and God, of course, with the bible. For this claim to be upheld my opponent needs to prove how evolution can occur in 6000 years. He moves on and says Usshers chronology only tells us the age of human existence, but I found likewise [1 - 3]. All of these sources shows that, according to Usshers chronology, CREATION was 4004 BC. Even according to Young Earth Creationists (YEC), the earth is likely less that 10,000 years old [4]. And finally, remember that my opponent has to defend ALL of the Christian religions, as he tacitly conceded the definition debate. ~~~~Basically, just to be lenient, I request that my opponent find a biblical interpretation that finds the earth to be over 100,000 years old. Still extremely young, but it's a stepping stone. YET, don't drop the resolutional analysis~~~~ 2. Historical This is a quote from his source. """ Ai was the second city Joshua's army attacked during the Conquest. The ruins of this city are a mound known to archaeology as et-Tell. A few individuals have questioned this identification, motivated by the fact that the archaeology at et-Tell at the traditional date for the Conquest does not fit the biblical account of the Conquest at all. However, the geography and topography of et-Tell closely match the biblical description of Ai. ... CONCLUSION There is clear archaeological evidence from et-Tell of the biblical Conquest at Ai. The evidence was not recognized by the original excavators, however, because the TRADITIONAL BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY upon which they were relying misdated the Conquest by a full millennium. """ My opponent, again, has to defend "the bible". 3. Internal To my statement "To sum it all up, it is for emphasis", my opponent responded "No to sum it all up 2 Kings sole purpose was to highlight the lives of the kings of Isreal" (S&G error, plus a failure). I'll let this one be up to the readers; answer the question and judge: Is there any way you would believe that a 'divinely-inspired book' would contain an obvious case of plagiarism? If you answer no, don't vote pro. If you answer yes, I guess I'll have to drop this argument. 4. Logical I agree; I haven't studied the bible. But prima facie, anyone would agree that there is an inherent contradiction. Moreover, my argument was misconstrued. The contradiction he says I make isn't really there; my argument was that God wouldn't order an evil creation that is Satan to do his work for him. Why? Hmm... Isn't Satan the one that tricked Adam into eating that apple? It would seem that Satan is a deceptive little devil to me. 5. Numerical My opponent prefers KJV over NIV. That isn't my problem to deal with; he said there are no contradictions in "the bible", I defined "the bible", he agreed to my definition of "the bible", and now he wants a different bible? Nah, he has to defend NIV, just like I explained before. Unless he can convincingly justify the fact that the NIV should be ENTIRELY rejected in the face of all of its millions of users, this argument stands. The resolution is negated, with characters to spare. o Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://gospelpedlar.com... [3] http://www.bibleword.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... o PS If you like, as you get more and more used to debate we can have another debate with no constraints. I'm not the person to copy and paste verses to provide contradictions, but so far in this debate I've had over 2500 spare characters, which I feel could be used more optimally.