There is at least one contradiction in the Bible

The document you posted says a lot and thus I will not be able to address everything but will hopefully do enough to cast doubt on his argument. 1. First of all, the writer starts with this comment: "Our rule for Biblical interpretation must be that the scriptures are without error, and contain no contradictions " therefore, any seeming contradiction is usually a result of our failure to perfectly understand" (pg. 1). The issue with this statement is that this writer possesses a hermeneutic that does not allow for contradictions. If you start with a belief that contradictions don"t exist, then even if there is one, you won"t see it. This is important to note however I deal with his main argument below. 2. His main point uses the wrong translation of the Hebrew in 2 Chronicles 22:9. As he says on page 5, "He is the son of Jehoshaphat"" is actually ""He is the grandson of Jehoshaphat"" (ESV). Hebrew uses the same word for both son and grandson, but if you go back to 2 Chronicles 21 it is laid out clearly: Jehoshaphat was father to Jehoram who was father to Ahaziah. That would make Jehoshaphat his grandfather. 3. The writer states that "The surest means for Athaliah to gain power would be through marriage" (page 6). This is speculation that fits his argument. There is nothing to indicate that she in fact did this. Marriage could be used in this way but it is not the only way. He provides no scriptural reference. 4. He again misquotes scripture in trying to make his point, which instead undermines it. 2 Chronicles 22:2 says, ""His mother"s name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri." Omri, as he states on page 6, is not her father but her grandfather. Athaliah is literally, not politically, the daughter of Ahab 2 Chronicles 21:6. This undermines where he goes next. 5. He then sets up a false scenario based off of improper translations stating how Athaliah had Ahaziah with Jehoshaphat but then married Jehoshaphat"s other son later, Jehoram, thus making Ahaziah a step-son, and the possibility of Ahaziah being older than Jehoram, who is his step-father (pages 6-7). This is how the writer makes it possible for Ahaziah to be forty two when he starts his reign yet be older than his father (or as he says, step-father). Athaliah is not, as he says, Ahab"s brother but Ahab is her father. This then leads to the fact that because of the writers improper translation of "father" instead of "grandfather" this cannot be true: "Thus, Ahaziah could have began to reign at twenty-two years of age, not in the sense of being the sole monarch over Judah and reigning from Jerusalem, but probably in the sense of being named the direct successor of Jehoshaphat, as a crowned prince" (page 8). He is not a direct successor nor a crowned prince after his "father" Jehoshaphat because that is his grandfather. His real father Jehoram is next in line. There are more problems with this but hopefully the point has been made. The rebuttal falls apart because this whole position uses the wrong translation of Scripture to make his point and thus set up a false scenario of how these two Scriptures don"t contradict. I do not see how this reconciles the two Scriptures.