There are contradictions in the Holy Bible.

I am glad that my opponent was able to return, and regret that we have so little space to complete this debate.Let me apprach this argument by summarizing it.My opponent argues that since James says that God tempts no man to evil, and then proceeds to argue that God tempts people to evil then there is a contradiction.He identifies three places in which he percieves the LORD tempting people with evil.The first is in the case of Abram when God commanded him to bring Isaac to be sacrificed. As I haev pointed out above, God never intended Abram to sacrifice his son. We have ever indication that God intended to stop him before he committed the sin, just as he did. My oppoent argues that God knows all things, so there is no necessity to test Abram... however, he does not provide a verse that says this... so at this point we have no biblical data in the argument to show this. Simply put, God was testing Abram for validity by seeing if he would be obediente no matter what. There is no contradiction here since God did not intend to allow Abram to sin.The second case is that of Judes 21:10-24. In this passage the Israelites send 12,000 men out to conqure a neighboring area. All the men, women who were not virigins, and children were killed. The passage then goes on to describe how the tribe of Benjamin had been decimated of their women, and would go extinct if it were not for some outside infusion of marritable women. The other tribes then proceed to divise a plan to allow them to replenish their stock of women from other tribes. What my opponent has failed to mention (or perhaps failed to recognize) is that God does not act in this story. No where do we see any of these things as commands from the LORD. He is entierly absent. How can we say that God temped to people to sin when it appears that he is absent from this story entierly? There is no contradiction since God did not command or intice these people to sin.The third is an argument in which God makes provisions to protect a woman who was raped. We must understand the social context of this command. Women in the Old Testament litteraly could not survive without men. They were not allowed to hold property, they were not able to do jobs that earned income. So when a woman was raped, and no man would marry her due to this, she was in a destitute position. In order to protect the woman, God commands the attacker to marry her and revokes his right to divorce her. This is not an act of evil, rather an act of compassion for the woman. Would it be traumatic to live with your attacker? Yes... however the alternative (Typically either a slow death due to starvation or being forced into slavery and prostitution) is more severe. There is no contradiction here because God is not enticing someone into sin, he is doing damage control once sin has aready occured. Beyond that, in Jewish culture... the Father of this victim would have had the perogative to deny this marriage and provid for his daughter in another way.The other "contradictions" my opponent identifies are relatively simple to explain. The matter of the centurion: Is it not possible that this is a story of two separate centurions? There are other significant distinctions between the two stories that make it likely that this is the account of two different accounts. In Luke, this takes place after Jesus delivers what is called the "Sermon on the Plain." It is called this because it is a sermon given... on a plain. In the Matthew account however, it is given after the "Sermon on the Mount" which is a sermon he gave... on a mount. Now, if one takes place after a sermon on the plain, and one takes place after a sermon on the mountain... then doesn't it seem to make more sense for Jesus to have preached on the plain on one day, then run into the Jews who were sent by the Centurion on his way back to town... and on a different day, preached on the mount and run into a Centurion directly on his way back to town? No contradiction, two separate stories two separate centurions.The matter of the Colt: This is simple... Matthew is emphasising a prophecy in which both a donkey and a colt were mentioned, so he saw it fit to mention that the disciples brought both a donkey and a colt. Mark does not reference that prophecy, and only mentioned that they brought the colt. If the disciples brought both the donkey and the colt, then it is not a contradiction to say that they brought the colt. Does Mark say that they brought ONLY the colt? If I hand you my hat and jacket, and you say "he handed me his jacket." are you being contradictory to reality? No... you are simply leaving out part of the story you feel is irrelevant. This is the case in this apparent discrepancy.As I have shown, all of the "Contradictions" my opponent has laid down are not actual contradictions. My opponent has failed to provide any contradictions that I did not reasonably explain as non-contradictory. Therefore I have fulfilled my burden of proof pro has not. Thank you for your votes.