The Bible does not contradict itself

I. "Allow me to point out that your sources are all Christian sites..." Unless you consider Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the Bible, and thefreedictionary.com to be "Christian sites", then his claim is an overstatement. Now judges, compare his response to my claim: "Allow me to point out that your source is skeptical Atheist blogs for everything mentioned there." What I said was true; for that specific area in the debate, his sources were "Skeptics Annotated Bible" (atheistic response to Biblical passages) and "infidels.org" an atheistic website. So my statement upholds its truth value, while my opponent exaggerates vastly to support his claim. Moving on to Quirinius again, I agree that he was probably governor from 6-12 AD. I just think that he was governor at an earlier time as well. I cannot find your unsourced statement that "Matthew claimed that Varus was governor from 7/6 - 4 BC" so if you could be so kind to include a reliable source that I could read next round, that'd be superb. I never claimed that Augustus would conduct the census for Syria, so we're in agreement on that. Your point that "'it was the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes'" did not seem to be a contradiction, be it true or not. Remember judges, in order for my opponent's point to stand, it must "imply the opposite or a denial of" another passage in the Bible. Although I stand by my claim that Quirinius was governor twice until you can prove otherwise, here's another solution: Luke uses the word "hegemon" meaning ruling officer instead of "legatus" which is the official title of Governor. So, it is also very possible that had he not been official Governor of Syria at the time, he could've been the ruling officer of the census. Why does the Bible say "governor" then? Because translations of ancient texts can be flawed. For the latter half, the passage you referenced just says that Jesus was presented to the Lord through customary ways and Simeon praised the child. I don't see a contradiction there with King Herod being mad. Judges, please read the passage Luke 2:22-38 that my opponent referenced. II. II.i. It doesn't say "God cannot hurt anyone." it says "His tender mercies are over all his works." "his works" is defined as the ones who have accepted him and whom he will not unleash his wrath against, like the Bible says. II.ii. Once again, you have to look at the bigger picture. Judges, please refer to my definition of warrior. soldier - a person who contends or serves in any cause[1] (and this is the religious definition at dictionary.com) It has a deeper meaning. End of story. II.iii. Once more, it does not, because you're taking snapshots out of context. You could do that with anything. I feel like I've touched this subject enough to the point where we'd be going around in circles. III. The accounts don't say "and this was his last word", they just say different things that He said, which I've already covered an explanation why. They don't contradict each other. IV. You still have the same problem: you're sourcing a random website that happens to be Christian, and claiming that it contradicts the Bible, so therefore the Bible contradicts itself. Judges, please take note. V. This doesn't imply the opposite of another passage. Thank you. Sources: [1]: http://dictionary.reference.com...