There are contradictions in the Bible

After looking at each of my opponent's arguments, there is a clear pattern in each one. These three supposed contradictions are all literary devices. Often people point out these literary devices as making the Bible contradictory or unscientific. But everyone uses figures of speech in everyday language and writing. If its summer we might say we are 'roasting,' though not literally. In this round I will show how each of these passages are nothing more that the Hebrew literary method. But first, I would like to let my opponent know that KJV is probably not the optimal version of the Bible for scholarly study or a debate that hinges on the translation. I will use New American Standard Bible for my arguments.1. Shape of the EarthIsaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.The 'circle of the earth' could mean one of two things, the earth is spherical or the earth is flat and circular. Given that there is a different word for 'sphere' I would say it means flat and circular. This could be reflective off the culture and science of the time, or this statement could be nothing more than a metaphorical device.Notice that every description other in this passage is metaphorical. Does God sit above the circle of the earth? Do humans look like grasshoppers? Did God stretch the heavens out like taffy? Are they like a tent? Etc. These are all metaphors and simile. Isaiah is one of the most symbolic books of the Bible; it is apparent Isaiah was not trying to be a geologist.The second passage is similar, after all, Jesus constantly speaks in parables and hyperbole. And Jesus naturally would have relayed this event to Matthew and His other disciples. Even if the earth was flat, one could not see all its kingdoms from a mountain, and such a tall mountain doesn't even exist. This is not literal then. Naturally, Jesus would have explained the story in a manner the disciples could comprehend. It was as if He was looking from a very tall mountain onto all the earth. I'm sure that is what the disciples got out of it, and to say that this is another metaphorical device would certainly make sense. There were non-literal statements in other verses of the same story.2. Do you answer a fool?This is one of my favorite proverbs mainly because of the clever play on words used here. Answer not a fool according to his folly, means don't let a fool bring you down to their level in an argument. The next verse is not contradictory but complimentary. For a better understanding of its literal translation let's look in the NASB version: Proverbs 26:4-5 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him.Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he not be wise in his own eyes. This is not telling us to avoid the remarks of a fool, just not according to his own foolishness. Some arguments are bad, therefore we shouldn't go along with the bad argument getting all worked up about nonsense. Often, all the fool wants is to get you frustrated and make you look like an idiot. This applies to debating. Off the top of my head I can remember a debate where I completely failed at this.3. Contradictions with science and historyJesus attempts to teach biology? First of all, the point of the parable is obviously not meant to teach these people biology. He's simply exaggerating elements to strengthen the allegorical significance of the parable. It's hyperbole. If my opponent would like me to give all the reasons He chose a mustard tree, I can go over them or we may move on.Pro claims he has 'tons of more arguments.' However, I would be surprised if he had more than 2,000, so I will suggest that he makes sure they are not just arguments regarding literary devices. So far, I feel like I have simply explained the meaning of the Bible, yet perhaps that is all that necessary to win the debate. I await Pro's response.