There are no contradictions in the bible

1. Scientific The Bible never says the age of the earth. Usshers chronology only tells us the age of human existence(note:Usshers chronology isn't precise nor is it accepted by everyone)! As you can see here:. http://www.answersingenesis.org.... That should be enough but what about Christians? The impression i get from the internet is that most Christians are old earth creationists. Here is an example of what they believe:. http://godandscience.org... other group which is less popular are called theistic evolutionists. This is what they believe:. http://www.theisticevolution.org... of these groups reject a 6000 years old earth. The group which does accept a 6000 years old earth are called young earth creationists. They are not crazy nor are they illogical (although in this group there are countless "scientists" who use pseudo science and facts. Science is one of my weaker subjects but i think this website shows that young earth creationists aren't unscientific:. http://www.gotquestions.org.... In conclusion the bible never states the age of the earth and Christians are accord with "modern science" (theistic evolutionists completely but young earth creationists only microscopically however this doesn't mean that they're definitely wrong). 2. Historical Sadly you made the same mistake twice. The bible never says when the Canaanite city Ai was destroyed. We do have a traditional biblical chronology but this is man made hence this isn't a mistake made by the bible but by man. This website presents a view which doesnt contradict "verifiable archeological studies":. http://www.biblicalchronologist.org... this isnt the only explanantion "The alternative proposal is that the Bible's chronology of events is accurate, and the Biblical Ai is not to be located at et-Tell, but a different site entirely. Dr. Bryant Wood has proposed that Ai should instead be located at the site of Kirbet el-Maqatir arguing that the evidence for this site being Ai is stronger than at et-Tell. ". http://en.wikipedia.org...(Bible). I also took my time to ask other people what they think and this is their typical response "Historic: Once again carbon dating is not accurate to say that Ai was burned down in 2400 b. c. " and "What this means is that the city excavated was **probably** not the city of Ai described in the Bible as being destroyed by Joshua (it does not prove it)". If you can prove that all those 4 responses are incorrect then this is a bible contradiction (unless proven otherwise but it wont be me hence you'll win the debate). 3. Internal This is a great response i found:"Now we must also point out the purpose of the two books. The book of Isaiah purpose was different than the author of 2 Kings. Isaiahs book Is about Isreal's and judah's coming destruction and restoration through Gods suffering servant. He lived during the reign of four kings and the last one was Hezekiah. for a clue as to what time he was living in he chronicled the life of that king. That's just like me writing a book about my life in 2008 and having a brief portion on the election and term of Barak Obama, because It is a monumental event in the historical background of my life. Now the book of 2 Kings sole purpose was to highlight the lives of the kings of Isreal, and they give a historical account of every king. Now its clear to see that the author copied it from Isaiah but that is no different than me writing a book about John F. Kennedy and copying some information out of his Biography, It does not add or take away from the fact that the event happened. So now one may ask the question, what was the purpose of God for allowing two identical accounts to be inserted into the Bible? If you were to read the bible you would discover this one thing about God, that if he is redundant about something, it is not a mistake, he is emphasizing the importance of the event because it can help change our lives. "The original response can be found here:. http://walkaway.aimoo.com.... Note:Some argued that this isn't a contradiction because of their idea of inspired word of God. I agree. Note:if you can prove that this information is incorrect then you still dont win because i have constructed a different answer the problem is that its not complete and unless you can prove otherwise i simply cant bother. 4. Logical "The anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David": The translators of the New King James Version believe that "He" in this sentence applies to God, because they capitalize it. Yet 1 Chronicles 21:1 tells us, Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. The best explanation is that Satan moved David and is the "he" of 2 Samuel 24:1. Yet the LORD expressly allowed it as a chastisement against David. i. "Now the 'he' there, we assume would be the Lord. But as we find out in 1 Chronicles, chapter one, it was Satan that moved David's heart, to the numbering of the people. So God opened the door, and allowed Satan to move in and tempt David. " (Smith) This is from:. http://enduringword.com... 5. Numerical "The two accounts do not disagree – you have over looked the exact wording in the KJV. 1 Kings 7:26 And it was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was fashioned like the brim of a cup, with a bud of a lily. It CONTAINED two thousand baths. Tells us how much was in the container. 2 Chronicles 4:5 And its thickness was a handbreadth, and its brim like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies. It received and HELD three thousand baths. Tells us how much the container would hold. So how is this contradiction? Another explanation is as follows, taken from Adam Clarke's commentary on the Bible 2 Chronicels 4:5 It - held three thousand baths - In 1Ki_7:26, it is said to hold only two thousand baths. As this book was written after the Babylonish captivity, it is very possible that reference is here made to the Babylonish bath which might have been less than the Jewish. We have already seen that the cubit of Moses, or of the ancient Hebrews, was longer than the Babylonish by one palm; see on 2Ch_3:3 (note). It might be the same with the measures of capacity; so that two thousand of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to three thousand of those used after the captivity. The Targum cuts the knot by saying, "It received three thousand baths of dry measure, and held two thousand of liquid measure. Taken from the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge which offers a similar thought - 2 Chronicels 4:5 three thousand baths: In the parallel passage, it is said to hold only two thousand baths; which some think may be reconciled by supposing that the quantity of water which was commonly in it was 2,000 baths, but that, if filled up to the top, it would hold 3,000. But, as we have already seen that the Babylonish cubit was less than that of the ancient Hebrews, it might be the same with measures of capacity; so that 2,000 of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to 3,000 of those used after the captivity. The Targum cuts the knot: "It received 3,000 baths of dry measure, and held 2,000 of liquid measure. " See note on 1Ki_7:26. 1Ki_7:26"Bible Student from answers. yahoo. com