There are contradictions in the Bible

I thank the Instigator for his opening debate. I would like to point out right away that the Instigator has already broken one of his rules, about showing good conduct. He started off with an unnecessary personal dig: "Many Christians like to pretend that the Bible is the Word of God because of the reliable history." My opponent has started off by insulting the rationality of Christians. Definitely not showing good conduct. I can declare a win based on that alone, but it seems awfully early. Hopefully the Instigator will pay closer attention to his own rules in the future.That being said, on to my Opening Argument.The Bible is one of the, if not the most, historically accurate books in existence today. That was because most of the Bible was written around the time history was occurring (with a few obvious exceptions, such as John perceiving the future in the book of Revelation, and Moses writing about the history of Creation in the book of Genesis). For example, we can trust the Bible's accuracy about the life of Jesus because the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, only about twenty years after Christ was crucified and resurrected. For the exceptions, we can trust its reliability because one, it was given under inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16), and two because if it's accurate in what we can prove, we can trust it is accurate in what we can't.For probably as long as they've been around, the Scriptures have been questioned. Its historical and archaeological accuracy has come into question many, many times. However, the Scriptures have also consistently proven that the argument from silence is a poor argument because once evidence for a particular historical point has been found, the Bible has been found accurate every time.I will now respond to my opponent's arguments.Evidence 1 -- King Herod vs. Quirinius of SyriaIt is pretty clear from the passage of Matthew that Christ was born during the reign of King Herod (between 6 BC and 4 BC). So how does Quirinius, governor of Syria, fit into the picture? Well, consider this first:Luke wrote the books of Luke and Acts. He is widely considered the most meticulous of the Biblical historians. In both books, he is writing to a "most excellent Theophilos" (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1), who is most likely the pseudonym of a high-ranking Roman official. In this case, he would certainly know if Luke got his Roman facts wrong.A fraud or myth-maker would not give such intricate historical details of names, titles, dates, and places as Luke (in particular) does. It is unlikely that Luke would write such details about important people which his contemporaries would know are false, if they were false.Now, there were actually two censuses that took place. Christian historian Paul Barnett explains:"First, the Romans employed the census formerly under the Republic, among other reasons, to assess property for taxation. Augustus revived the practice in Rome, where it had fallen into disuse .Augustus revived the practice in Rome, where it had fallen into disuse. He was also the first to introduce the census to the provinces, which he did progressively and piecemeal, as he did with a census in Egypt in 10/9 B.C., which was to be repeated at fourteen-year intervals. Thus the census in Judea as described in Luke 2:1-3 fits with Augustus's known practice, even though there is no evidence of a precise decree (dogma) issued by the emperor calling for a universal registration. Second, Luke also refers (in Acts 5:37) to Quirinius's registration in A.D. 6: "Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census." By these words Luke recognizes the significance of the notorious census undertaken by Quirinius that provoked Judas' uprising. Yet Luke 2:2 introduces the word prote, "first," which suggests that Quirinius's registration was not the only census in Judea. Luke wants us to understand that there was another census or censuses, whether before or after Quirinius's census. It should be noted that, although the word prote means "first," in certain contexts it carries the comparative nuance "former." Luke himself provides an example of this in the opening words of his second volume, the book of Acts: "in the first [protos = "former"] book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach (Acts 1:1)." [1]So as you can see, there were actually two censuses taking place. Christ was born in the time of Herod when a census was taking place. So the word here, "protos," in this context means "former." Quirinius indeed had a census, but this wasn't it. Quirinius instituted a census which had formerly taken place, a census which occurred near Herod's death.Contention 2: Medical errorsMy opponent's argument here is actually irrelevant. He is not questioning the Bible's medical accuracy, he is in fact questioning the Bible's accuracy on miracles. The examples he cited, the "signs that will follow those who believe" are miracles, not intended for common medical practice. In fact, Jesus Himself even said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick" (Matthew 9:12). Jesus never intended for Christians to have superpowers to heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, etc. We have doctors for a reason. The reason that "faith healings" fail is because they are not intended in the spirit many believe they are. If a Christian lets their child die because they tried to heal them rather than seeing a doctor, they are in error. God never condemns the use of doctors, in fact He asserts that the sick need doctors in the passage I quoted.So again, the Instigator's evidence here is irrelevant. They are not medical errors. They are miracles, which is a topic for another debate.As you see, I have shown how these two instances are not errors at all. I look forward to the next round.[1] (Barnett, P.W., "Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, p.98)