The Bible Has Contradictions

Note: I ran out of space...that's why! As for Space Issues I would just be posting the verse numbers and their Bible Versions. -Arguments- 1) Genesis 2:17 vs Genesis 5:5 (KJV) Thou Shalt Die vs Adam lived nine hundred thirty years Opponent's Comment: Either God lied or this is a contradiction. One says he would die that day. The other says he died much later. -The Bible is NOT meant to be taken literally, or even scientifically (although many would disagree with me). Second in interpreting the Bible, one has to place one's self in the author's shoes in order to understand the meaning and its real essence. Genesis was written for the purpose of showing Creation, Man's Fall and Man's Salvation. Let us understand that the early belief of those who wrote the Genesis (purpotedly claimed as Abraham "LINK HERE") is that Man is to live ETERNALLY without death. God said Thou Shalt surely die...and he didn't mean...literally DIE that day, but from that day onwards, his REAL LIFE (Life of his soul) his Eternal Life died. Now that his eternal life has died he cannot live forever...thus he DIED in a figurative sense. 2) Genesis 4:4 vs Acts 10:34 (KJV) The Lord Respected Abel vs Peter said I perceive that God is no respecter of persons Opponent's Comment: One says God respected someone. The other says God respects no one. -The very reason that I wanted my opponent to give the Bible Version because of this very reason. That many versions are in fact inaccurate, or sometimes fight against each other...The verse of genesis and acts when compared to other Bible verses you'll see that they used a different word...The Bible originally was not written in English, it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. And so because of this many translations seems to contradict with one another. As reference Genesis 4:4 Parallel Translations- http://bible.cc... Acts 10:34 Parallel Translations- http://bible.cc... We see here that sometimes Peter said Favorites, Partiality, Respect, etc etc. The same way in Genesis the author says Favoured, Respected, regarded and etc. Thus making us go around and around. But if we see here the word PERSONS does not mean PERSONS in itself, for if Peter meant MEN he would have written PEOPLE. But rather he chose the word PERSONS which in a broad term can mean that God is no respecter of PERSONS which means persona, does not care of who you are or what you can do. Putting this interpretation in mind, it would align with the other translations saying that God doesn't play favourites and partiality. And if we were to continue what he was saying in verse 35 there we would understand that "But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" Thus the whole verse Acts 10:34-35 says KJV: Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. NIV: Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. They are connected! This is the problem of pick and choose verses that could be manipulated and that could be taken out of context. I leave my opponent with the burden of proof to provide the original hebrew and greek translation of that certain verse. Of what word Genesis really used in Hebrew/Aramaic and what word Acts really used in Greek. As to really see if God meant RESPECT, FAVOURED, PARTIALITY, and etc. However this are the arguments I have presented in the previous case 3) Genesis 6:6 vs 1 Samuel 15:29 Repented vs Does not repent Opponent's Comment: One says God repented. The other says God never repents. Also, it says he never lies, which would make the first verse I posted have to be a contradiction. -These purported contradictions all presuppose some platonic-type sky god. Christianity has always believed that God is a God who relates and who is personal. And whenever there is a personal relationship, there is a dynamic. And dynamics can involve both immutability and change. Whenever you have a personal dynamic, when one person changes, the other responds in a way which reflects this change. But all is not relative. If God's essence is immutable, then He is the standard by which such change is understood. For example, imagine you are in a field standing next to a tree. As you walk around the tree, you may end up north of the tree (and the tree is south of you). If you continue walking, such a relative relationship changes, so that you might find yourself south of the tree (and the tree is north of you). In the same way, our behavior towards God is like walking around the tree. Depending upon what we do, God is in a different relationship with us. Let's consider a better analogy. A man and a wife are in a happy marriage. The man commits adultery, and the wife becomes unhappy. Has the wife changed in a significant manner? Not really. Her change is a function of what her husband did, and reflects the immutability of her belief that infidelity is wrong. In the purported contradictions, we have a set of Scriptures which speak of God's essence - it is unchangeable. The other set deal with God's relationships with men (they don't abstractly speak of God's essence). Thus, as the above analogies show, there need be no contradiction. 4) Genesis 6:19 vs Genesis 7:2 KJV Pair vs Sevens Opponent's Comment: One says two animals every kind were put in the ark. The other says of some kinds there were seven taken. -Noah brought in exactly what God commanded—one pair of each ordinary animal (6:19), but then six more pairs of any animals. He was told the reason for bringing in the male and female pairs, was to prevent their extinction (6:19b), and we know that the additional pairs of "clean" animals were for Noah to offer as a sacrifice to God, for this is exactly what he did (Gen 8:20). It's easy to see that if Noah had sacrificed his only male or female of a species, he would have caused their extinction! This is so obvious, in fact, I'm surprised anyone ever imagined a contradiction in this passage. In this case, God is clearly wiser than His critics.To make matters worse, one skeptic complained that after God had commanded Noah to load seven pairs of the clean animals, Noah disobeyed, and brought in only two of every kind (Gen 7:9). But this critic is also mistaken! Genesis 7:9 does not say Noah brought in "two" of each animal. It says he brought in the animals "by twos," (plural) which is true in every case. He brought in one pair of each unclean animal, and seven pairs of each clean animal. But all of them were paired, weren't they? (After all, taking along an equal number of males and females should have made their mating somewhat easier!) That Noah brought in the species "by pairs," "in twos," or "two by two" is evident, not only in the original Hebrew, but also in every English translation. All a man has to do with this verse, is read what it says, and not add his own pessimistic ideas. Again, it's ridiculous to suppose the compiler of Genesis, or his ancient editors, would be stupid enough to insert a contradictory report only four verses later! Ancient man was less informed than we are, but he was not less intelligent. (If you don't believe that, please show me the modern equivalent to Aristotle.) It seems to me that skeptics have never really thought this through. 5) Genesis 10:5 vs Genesis 11:1 KJV Many Families vs One before... Opponent's Comment: One describes there being multiple languages before the Tower of Babel, the other says there was only one. - We learn in Genesis 11:1–9 why these families separated from each other and how it came to be that there were so many languages in the world. There is no contradiction here; Moses merely put the effect before the cause. Genesis 10 gives an overview, and