There are no contradictions in the bible

Although its exhausting im glad im finished and i cant say i didnt have fun (seeing how you contradicted yourself).Also good luck except with the part where you contradict yourself,i dont want it to be refuted! :) 1.Scientific Now that I have examined the previous rounds many times - I have to say that the easiest way for me to refute this "contradiction" is by saying two words:theistic evolution.They are Christians (not necessarily) who believe in everything evolution teaches (including the age of the earth) but reject the belief in no God.There are other ways of refuting this "contradiction"(for example old earth creationists, you can go to godandscience.org) but i want to have this "contradiction" refuted in this round in the simplest way possible. You may still insist that Usshers chronology tells us the age of the earth but my answer is still the same "Usshers chronology only tells us the age of human existence".However young earth creationists claim that the earth was created in 6 literal days meaning that this world is 6000 years old.The Bible makes no such claim.The problem you have isn't with the bible but with the young earth creationists (more detail about them can be found in gotquestions.org just type in "young earth creationists"). 2.Historical "We do have a traditional biblical chronology but this is man made hence this isn't a mistake made by the bible but by man." I wrote a book one time, and I made a mistake in my book, but the book isn't wrong because I made the mistake so the book isn't wrong wait WHAT?" Clarification:" Traditional biblical chronology" is a reference to Usshers chronology (or any other similar type) Which according to this website is inaccurate(http://www.biblicalchronologist.org....).If this website is right and Usshers chronology is inaccurate then your argument is invalid because "There is clear archaeological evidence from et-Tell of the biblical Conquest at Ai. The evidence was not recognized by the original excavators, however, because the traditional biblical chronology upon which they were relying misdated the Conquest by a full millennium."http://www.biblicalchronologist.org.... I did give more arguments "the Biblical Ai is not to be located at et-Tell, but a different site entirely. Dr. Bryant Wood has proposed that Ai should instead be located at the site of Kirbet el-Maqatir arguing that the evidence for this site being Ai is stronger than at et-Tell."http://en.wikipedia.org......(Bible).This argument is valid because were never given a map by the author but only a description. You have to first prove that Usshers chronology is accurate and that the chronology the website presents is inaccurate. Then you have to prove that the city Ai was located at et-tell. 3.Internal "To sum it all up, it is for emphasis." No to sum it all up 2 Kings sole purpose was to highlight the lives of the kings of Isreal meaning (read the example given in the previous round) that this doesn't contradict the idea that bible is inspired by God. That response (previous round) also explains why God would let two identical accounts be written (emphasis).Also the example is pertinent because The Holy Bible is a collection of books and not a one big book. 4.Logical "I find it hard that God himself would open the door for SATAN to do his work."That just proves that you haven't studied the bible.God controls Satan for his own purpose for example read the book of Job. Also you contradicted yourself "God and the Devil/Satan are clearly not equivalent" but now youre implying that God wouldn't let Satan do his work if he could?So is God more powerful than Satan or not?If Satan is more powerful then at what point did created beings had the ability to exceed their creators? "This is only one group's explanation" Yes it is.So can you prove them wrong or is this not a contradiction? 5.Numerical To be honest I prefer to always use the KJV over NIV:http://av1611.com... Here are few answers I found but they obviously dont use the NIV version: http://www.rationalresponders.com... http://www.godrules.net... (This means that this version is widely rejected now im not an expert but i do trust experts and experienced Christians) In short NIV isnt a good bible version. Thats the main idea of the alternative explanation:" It might be the same with the measures of capacity; so that two thousand of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to three thousand of those used after the captivity" and "so that 2,000 of the ancient Jewish baths might have been equal to 3,000 of those used after the captivity." So you have two things to prove: 1)NIV is correct in its translation 2)The measure of capacity didnt change after the captivity