bible has no siginficant contradiction in it

First, I would like to state in general that ANY contradiction in the Bible is significant in that it demonstrates that the Bible is NOT the inspired, inerrant word of God. If there are two different testimonies given on the same matter (as in a court of law) one could be correct, perhaps neither is correct, but they cannot both be correct so we must recognize that at least one is false. There might be a temptation to combine the testimonies into one big mega account that neither witness actually described, but even that attempt to reconcile the events fails when the two accounts contain mutually exclusive information ( in other words one thing or the other could be true, but not both). It seems to be a common practice with Christian apologists to combine the testimonies in this way, but they are in fact creating a new account that no writer of the Bible actually says happened. I will not accept a combination version that is created using contradictory, irreconcilable parts as the right version of events. I will bypass the numerous examples of copy mistakes, mistranslations , and known interpolations in order to go directly to the examples of contradiction that are significant in that they are problematic from a historical point of view and from a devotional point of view. There are many including the creation stories, the birth and early life narratives of Jesus, the genealogies, the betrayal , the resurrection stories, the appearances, and the farewell discourse at the last supper. For round one of this debate consider the two contradictory accounts of the genealogy of Jesus. One given in Luke and the other in Matthew. People do not normally read the Bible in a horizontal manner where they take the two accounts and compare them side " by " side. If you do that you will find that they disagree completely, even as early as Joseph"s father and the discrepancies continue all the way back. When you do the comparison you will have to rearrange one account since they are in opposite order. I could do the comparison for you, but I assume you have a Bible and can see for yourself what it says. Christian apologists are quick to claim that one of these genealogies is of Mary, but the Bible explicitly states in both cases that it is the genealogy of Joseph being written. The only proof you need is to read the text. The genealogy issue is significant because of the reason that both writers give a genealogy of Jesus. It is to establish that Jesus is from the House of David. This purpose for the genealogy brings to light another problem. Although the writers wanted to establish that Jesus fulfilled the Biblical requirement of being of Davidic lineage, it is odd to me that they chose to trace his lineage through Joseph since Joseph was (according to the Bible story) NOT the biological father of Jesus. Supernatural claims such as this are also problematic from a historical reliability point of view. As a bonus aside, I want to also mention that the genealogy given by Luke goes much further - all the way back to Adam and proclaims at the end that Adam is the son of God. He never says that Jesus is the Son of God. To conclude my comments for the first round, the genealogy narrative is an example of an internal contradiction, which demonstrates errors in facts and in scientific understanding on the part of the writers. The writers were either ignorant of the science of genetics (which does not bode well for the claim that they were inspired by an omniscient god) AND they were so eager to establish a "devotional" truth that they rushed head on into creating a contradiction that apologists struggle to explain. The only source I have used is the Bible.