The Bible is contradictory

It seems my opponent has droped every last one of his round 1 arguments, so I guess they are refuted to his satisfaction? Vote Con. How orderly were things created? Very orderly in the pre-Adamic era, not so orderly with Adam and Eve - two separate events, hence, no contradiction. How satisfied with creation was he? Very satisfied with the pre-Admic creation; no record of how he felt about Adam and Eve - two separate events, hence, no contradiction. A contradiction is two things that can't be true at the same time, but since Adam and Eve came "after" the 7 days in Gen 1:1-2:3, we have no conflict. Moses' personality Num 12:3: says Moses was "meek," which means "humble, teachable," which doesn't conflict with one's ability to get very angry at times as in Num 31:14, 17, 18. Millions of humble persons, people who recognize their limitations, are very agressive when it comes to war. This isn't a contradiction; these qualities exists simultaneously in people today! Psalm 92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree," that is, they flourish spiritually during their lifetime which is obvious from verses 13-15 which says they will tell about the Lord in their old age; this doesn't contradict the fact that they will die at some point, and when they do, people in general don't take it to heart. (Isa 57:1) They say sweet words at the funeral and move on with their lives. As for Judas, its very possiblel Judas hanged himself from a tree whose branches reached out over a cliff. Either the rope or branch broke, and his body bounced off some lower portuding bracnches which put him in a headlong plunge into the rocks below. Where was Jesus' first sermon, plain or mount? Neither account says anything about this being his "first sermon." They were probably two different sermons with similar content. Matt 4:23 indicates that before this Jesus had already done lots of speaking. It is not at all uncommon for a preacher to preach similar sermons at different times and with different audiences, now is it? Notice how the order and content differs between Matt 7:1-29 and Luke 6:37-49 implying these are two separate sermons - one in he mount, one in the plain. As for Jesus' last words, Matt 27:46,50; Luke 23:46 and John 19:30 only show that Jesus said these things shortly before he died, each account only mentioning certain things he uttered before his death; but none of these verse actually claim that these were Jesus "last" words. So far as we know, the Gospels do not tell us what his "last" words were. Years of famine: Here a variation is found between the Samuel and Chronicles accounts. Whereas 2ï¿½Samuel 24:13 says seven years of famine, 1ï¿½Chronicles 21:12 says three. The Greek Septuagint reads "three" in the Samuel account, and since this is older and more reliable than the Hebrew Mesoretic text, I believe it could be a scribal error. However, one alternative explanation is that the seven years referred to at Second Samuel would, in part, be an extension of the three years of famine that came because of the sin of Saul and his house against the Gibeonites. (2Sa 21:1,ï¿½2) The current year (the registration took 9 months and 20 days [2Sa 24:8]) would be the fourth, and three years to come would make seven. Although the difference may have been due to a copyist's error, it may be said again that a full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances should be had before one reaches such a conclusion. Who moved David to anger? 2 Sam 24:1 is better translated as, "For one moved David against them." In this case, the numbering of the people was the cause of God's anger, not the result. After all, without this interpretation, it is not clear why God was angry with Israel. The Hebrew text doesn't actually say that "God" moved David against them. How could the lineages of Joseph be different in Matthew and Luke? The difference in nearly all the names in Luke's genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew's is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David's son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6,ï¿½7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus' natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus' legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus' father. So Heli, called Joseph's father by Luke, is really his father-in-law, the father of Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: "This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2.ï¿½That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus ["The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant"]' (‘Baba bathra,' 110, a)."—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129. The other differences occur because the writers had theological reasons for omitting names; for example the omission in Matthew of three kings of David's line between Jehoram and Uzziah (Azariah) is because Jehoram married wicked Athaliah of the house of Ahab, the daughter of Jezebel, thereby bringing this God-condemned strain into the line of the kings of Judah. (1Ki 21:20-26; 2Ki 8:25-27) Naming Jehoram as first in the wicked alliance, Matthew omits the names of the next three kings to the fourth generation, Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah, the fruits of the alliance.—Compare Mt 1:8 with 1Ch 3:10-12. There are also scribal errors that account for some of the problems in Luke, and certain individuals were known by more than one name. When factors like these are considered it brings harmony to the geneaologies. God be seen? Yes, men have seen God in the flesh, but not in his true nature as he is. God is a Spirit (John 4:24), thus is invisible to human eyes (1 Tim 1:17), so men can only see him in vision or when he takes a physical form. So what they are seeing in one sense isn't God, that is, divinity; but on the other hand, they are seeing the person called God. So in one case we can't see the divine nature (God), in the other we can see the person (God). The key is that the wod "God" doesn't always mean the same thing. In John 1:1 the Word was with "God," the word "God" here being a synonym for God the Father (a person), and the Word was God (that is, the same "nature" as the Father, but wasn't the Father himself). So it means a person in one case and a nature in the next. As for God's qualities, even individual humans today possess all the qualities laid out here by my opponent. These are different aspects of the same personality which can coexist without conflicting with each other. God "will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy" all those unrepentant ones he finds worthy of such (Jer 13:14), and be "very pitiful and of tender mercy." (Jas 5:11) towards those who repent sincerely and don't deserve this treatment. God reads the heart and sees who deserves mercy and who doesn't. The Hebrew and Greek words translated "tempted" also mean "tested." God "tested" Abraham, he didn't tempt him, hence no contradiction; and the test God gave Abaham was not an "evil" thing, hence does not violate James 1:13 in any way. The Greek word for "ascended" at John 3:13 means to "ascend on one's own power," Elijah didn't do this but was brought; there are many heavens - says who 2 Kings 2:11 mean the same one in John 3:13? As for the cock crowing, Jesus made both statements; both are true.