The Bible is free of contradiction

My opponent concedes to the inaccuracy of her First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh, and Twelfth claims. Supposed Contradiction #4, which is the first instance of God changing His mind, shall now be Supposed Contradiction #1. I shall now answer my opponent's Supposed Contradictions numerically, numbering 1-81. Does God Change His Mind? I don't exactly understand my opponent's problem with this. God did not change His mind about the goodness of man, for He made man and man sinned against Him. Does God regret in this situation where before He did not? Of course...but if we are to think that this qualifies as change then any sort of difference in attitude is a change as well. When God is disappointed with us, does He change simply because He was not disappointed before? Does God change when He pours out wrath because he did not pour it out before? It seems to me that if we are to accept this kind of action as a changing of one's mind, then the verses provided by Con to say that God does not change are being misused. Obviously the writers were not talking about how God does not change in his emotion, rather that what He says does not change. His actions do not, his words do not, etc. 2. Jesus and Testifying. This was, again, quite satisfying. I read through the passage of John 8, and I found why Jesus is saying that His testimony is true. Here is the passage: Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” 13 Then the Pharisees said to him, “You are testifying on your own behalf; your testimony is not valid.” 14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid because I know where I have come from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I judge no one. 16 Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is valid; for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. 17 In your law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is valid.18 I testify on my own behalf, and the Father who sent me testifies on my behalf.”Jesus is saying that He is not testifying alone, for The Father is also testifying on his behalf. This is why he says such about His own testimony. Now, what about when Jesus speaks about his testimony being invalid? Well, when we read the full text, we see the full picture. I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me 31 “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 32 There is another who testifies on my behalf, and I know that his testimony to me is true. 33 You sent messengers to John, and he testified to the truth. 34 Not that I accept such human testimony, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36 But I have a testimony greater than John’s. The works that the Father has given me to complete, the very works that I am doing, testify on my behalf that the Father has sent me. 37 And the Father who sent me has himself testified on my behalf. See? There is no testimony where Jesus speaks for Himself, He is showing us that even if He testifies by Himself, The Father also testifies with Him. Therefore one is two. I and The Father are one. -John 10:30There is no contradiction. 3. Language in Ancient TimesI personally believe that Noah could have found other human beings, but we are simply ignorant of the events that transpired afterwards. I obviously do not believe in a global flood interpretation, so there could have been other civilizations. We simply do not know what happened, Moses does not write of it. So no, there is no reason to concede on the basis of dramazitation. 4. The Ten PlaguesThe Exodus Decoded has been criticized heavily by scholars, and I had remembered that I had actually watched it sometime in the past. Due to the overwhelming criticisms of the film in general, I do request a more established work with better footing in the scholarly world. (See source "1" for the various critiques of the film)5. Sins of The FatherI really do not see the contradiction here. Ezekiel is saying that one who sins shall die, and Moses is saying that if a son follows in the footsteps of his wicked father that he too will suffer consequence. The entire text of Exodus 20:5 is as follows: "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me."The text is showing that the sins of the father are being passed down to those who hate God as their fathers did.Now look at the verse before Ezekiel 18:20:19 Yet you say, “Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?” When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live.The text is showing that the sins of the father shall not be suffered by the son if the son is righteous. 6. Jacob or Israel? First off, it should be noted that much like the Proverbs contradiction, if my opponent is right then Genesis 46:1 contradicts Genesis 46:2. Genesis 46:1:When Israel set out on his journey with all that he had and came to Beer-sheba, he offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac. The answer to this is that the name Israel is used in a spiritual sense, this was the name given to God as a spiritual "title". He was still called Jacob as a person, but Israel was used to signify the spirituality or importance of Jacob. So, for instance, in Genesis 48:16 we read the following: the Angel who has delivered me from all harm --may he bless these boys. May they be called by my name and the names of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they increase greatly on the earth.Lest we take this too literally, we can see that Jacob is giving his title of "Israel" unto the sons of Joseph. This was not his new name in the sense of Saul to Paul, but rather a title given to him. 7. Eighth Commandment I was a bit skeptical of the verses that Con provided, they seemed to leave out quite a bit. My doubts were confirmed. Here is the full text of Exodus 3:20-22 1 "I will bring this people into such favor with the Egyptians that, when you go, you will not go empty-handed; 22 each woman shall ask her neighbor and any woman living in the neighbor’s house for jewellery of silver and of gold, and clothing, and you shall put them on your sons and on your daughters; and so you shall plunder the Egyptians.”Unless my opponent would wish to defend the position that asking a neighbor for something is theft, then I don't see this as any sort of contradiction. 8. Dead ZedI really don't understand why this is contradictory. He did not die by the sword, and he died in custody. His own sons were slaughtered, and he was not. I'd say that dying of natural causes is very peaceful. These were, once again, great attempts at finding a contradiction. The same guidelines apply to round 3. Rebut any contradiction you would like, and give as many more as you would like, but please keep it within reason. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...