There are no contradictions in the Bible

My position is that there are a whole lot of contradictions. I will describe some major contradictions concerning some fundamental aspects of the canonical scripture, and the theology thereof. Let me start off by describing one of the foundation tenets of the Christian faith. Christianity is ultimately centered around repentance and redemption. It is believed that we have inherited original sin from Adam when he ate the forbidden fruit and, thus, rebelled against God (Genesis 2:17). Virtually all Christian denominations agree upon this fact. Because of our innate depravity, all of us fall short in the glory of God. None of us can enter the Kingdom of heaven on the merits of our own actions. The only way to heaven is by having a relationship with Jesus Christ and by accepting him as your savior (Romans 3:23). In Genesis 2:16-17, tt seems that God placed temptation in front of his two naive children and allowed them to be tempted by the serpent (Genesis 3: 1-7), resulting in a single mistake that would contaminate hundreds of billions with a sinful nature resulting in them descending into hell. In effect, God has deliberately sent billions of soul into eternal punishment by virtue of their sinful nature because of what one individual was responsible for (Genesis 3:3). God is viewed in Christianity as everywhere present; that he sees and knows all things: (Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21). However, here are some verses that demonstrates that God is not everywhere present: neither sees nor knows all things: (Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8). Hence, is God just inept or just not omniscient? Or if he were omniscient, how can we have free will if God knows everything that is going to happen? If God knows which act an agent is going to perform, then that act isn't free. If that is so, then God is a malevolent and evil God. Despite the importance that Christianity attaches to justice (Proverbs 21:15, Micah 6:8, Isaiah 30:18, Psalm 37:27-29, etc.) it doesn't seem fair in anyone"s mind that all of humanity should be punished due to the action of one man. Even the Bible itself notes this as a fair principle. In Ezekiel 18:20 it says that children shouldn't be held responsible for the sins of their parents. They shall be judged by the merits of their own righteousness. Eternal hell is not just. Justice entails a limitation; the crime must fit the time. God also punishes women arguably more harshly than men. God "multiplied their sorrows" and burdened them with the plight and pain of childbirth and declared that "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Genesis 3:16) whereas God cursed Adam with having to work hard to get food from the cursed ground (Genesis 3:17). Even though Eve was the first one to be deceived to eat from the forbidden fruit, isn't it strange that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam and not Eve, or both (Rom 5:12, 14)? That is due to the fact that Adam was the head of the household. When God was looking for them he didn't ask"Adam and Eve where are you?" He said, "Adam, where are you?" (Gen 3:9). If women transgress, this is because their husband couldn't watch their back. Women are just "suitable helpers" with no intellectual autonomy over their husbands essentially (Genesis 2:18). I can't see how this condescending attitude towards women is in any way just and fair. The New Testament makes the assertion that the truth of Christianity stands or falls on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Apostle Paul stated:"If Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain, yea, and we are found false witness of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ " and if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain; you are still in your sins." If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable" (1 Corinthians 15:14, 15, 17, 19, KJV) Consequently, if the four Gospel narratives of Jesus resurrection were to conflict with one another, then how can we not regard it as a theological contradiction, not to mention historically false? In fact, all these accounts differ on some vital aspects. Sometimes is not merely discrepancies in details but discrepancies in emphasize that really matters. For instance, Mark has a very powerful portrayal of Jesus walking to his death. He is silent the whole time. Everybody mocks him while he is on the cross, soldiers and people that passes by him alike. He finally cries out "my, God, why have you forsaken me?". You get the idea that he is in shock while he is dying a painful and humiliating death, unsure of why it is happening to him. Contrast that with Luke's gospel. In Luke you have a completely different emphasize. When Jesus is about to be crucified he is not silent. He sees some women by the side of the rode and says to them: "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children." Here Jesus is not in shock unsure of what is happening - he is concerned about these people. While he is on the cross he prays: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."While Jesus is hanging on the cross, it's not that both of the crucified people mock him - one of them mock him and the other turns to him and tells him to be quiet for Jesus has done nothing do deserve it. He then turns to Jesus and says: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." To which Jesus replies: "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." Here Jesus does not feel forsaken. He knows full well that he is going to paradise and he knows that this guy is coming with him. Before he dies he shouts out: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Indeed, these are very different portrayals, and it is a mistake by Christians to try to merge this gospels when in fact they have two different point of views with crucial distinctions. One problem you will encounter with the resurrection narrative is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let"s ignore that for some inexplicable reason the other Gospels left out the "great earthquake" as part of their narratives). This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence. Yet, in Mark's Gospel it evidently happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great." However, Luke 24:2 writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." The same occurs in John 20:1. No earthquake, no rolling stone. The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived, so which one is it? Since there are three accounts that contradict that of Matthew, it loses with a three-to-one vote. How many women came to the tomb Easter morning? Was it only Mary Magdalene as told in John? Were it only Magdalene and the other Mary as is told in Matthew 28:1? Were it Magdalene, Mary and Salome as is told in Mark 16:1? Or were it three women albeit with different names (Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary) as is told in Luke 24:10? Which account is the correct one? Did the women tell the disciples about what they had seen? Matthew and Luke make clear that they did so immediately. But Mark says, "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Ironically, that is also where the book ends, so how did Mark figure that the resurrection story ever got out? Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (as opposed to Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as the angel on the newly moved rock predicted: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." (Matthew 28:7) This piece of information must have been of utmost importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself, that this would be the place they were going to meet during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32). When the disciples got wind of this information,"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshiped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) In context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt? The four accounts differ on Jesus first resurrection appearance. In Mark 16:14-15 he first appears to Mary Magdalena, albeit it"s not clear as to where that meeting actually takes place. In Matthew 28:8-9, Jesus first appears near his tomb. In Luke 24:13-15 first appears several miles from Jerusalem near Emmaus. However, in John 20:13-14, he first appears at his tomb. Which one is it? I wonder, how can these angel messages, the different locations and travels during the day be reconciled? How many days did Jesus supposedly teach after his resurrection? Some Christians might know by heart that "He appeared to them over a period of forty days" (Acts 1:3). In the Gospel of Luke, however, it also says that he he ascended into heaven the same day as the resurrection (Luke 24:51). Which one is it? Since the resurrection narrative are so clearly discordant with one another, I would challenge you, or any Christian for that matter to try to sort these ostensibly discrepant events into one coherent narrative where they all fit together. I have yet to see a Christian apologetic demonstrate the plausibility of such an undertaking, and none that I know of have so far succeeded.