The Bible is full of contradictions.

Genesis 1:1 says, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the six days of creation (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week the sixth day and there is no contradiction.In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground." So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for vegetation" are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11 uses a term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing farmable vegetation to grow until after He created man.The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals. There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.You second question is a common misconception, and easily explained. There are two different lineages for Christ because the Jews trace it through the father. Matthew recorded this to show the Jews that Christ was the Messiah.Joseph’s lineage was also given to show that Jesus was, in fact, born of a virgin. If Joseph had been Christ’s natural father, then Christ could never have sat on the throne of David, because of a curse God placed on one of Joseph’s ancestors.This ancestor, Jechonias, is mentioned in Matthew 1:11-12. He is also referred to as Coniah in Jeremiah 22:24-30. Verse 30 states, “Thus says the Lord, Write you this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.” This man was so evil, that God cursed him and his descendants. Jeconiah (as his name is spelled in the Old Testament) did go on to have children (I Chron. 3:17). But, this curse was fulfilled because none of his children went on to rule from the throne of David.So how could Christ, a descendant of David, qualify to rule from the throne?This is how Luke 3 complements the Matthew account. Luke records Mary’s genealogy. According to Jewish tradition, in marriage, Mary’s genealogy was placed in her husband’s name. The Greek simply records that Joseph was “of Heli” (Luke 3:23). But since Jacob was Joseph’s father (Matt. 1:16), Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli.Mary’s lineage did not have this curse as Joseph’s did. And Mary descended from Nathan—one of David’s sons! (see Luke 3:31). God honored Nathan, and made him the ancestor to the promised King—Jesus Christ—who would sit on David’s throne forever (Luke 1:31-33). This fulfills God’s promise of establishing David’s throne for eternity!According to Israel’s law, if a daughter were the only heir to the father, she would inherit all his possessions, inheritance and rights—but only if she married within her tribe (Num. 27:1-8; 36:6-8). Since Mary had no brothers who could be heirs to her father, she was able to transmit David’s royal inheritance—and the right to the throne—to her husband upon marriage. This made Joseph heir to Heli, giving him the right to David’s throne. This inheritance was then passed to Christ.The genealogies in Matthew and Luke were both recorded to show Christ’s right to the throne. Matthew’s account showed that through Joseph’s genealogy, Christ was a legal descendant of Jeconiah (Coniah), but could not sit on and rule from the throne because of the curse. This account also proved how Christ was born of a virgin woman, because the curse would have passed onto Christ if Joseph were, in fact, His natural father. Of course, Christ was really the Son of God—begotten by the Holy Spirit!Your third question is answered here. The terms "light" and "darkness" can both be used of God without being contradictory. They are are actually complimentary. Understanding their context is key, so let's look at the verses you mentioned. In 1 Timothy 6:16, Paul speaks of God's unapproachability (Ex. 24:17; 34:35; Ps. 104:2). God is light (1 John 1:5; cf. John 1:4). Without special equipment we do not look directly into the light of the sun because it is too bright. As one of my former seminary professors stated, "We need it to see by, yet we cannot look into it, for it is too intensely brilliant." So in this sense, God dwells in unapproachable light. Also, a nuance of light being so brilliant is that it is then unsearchable - and so God seems "dark" to us (Rom. 11:33). 1 Kings 8:12 references Psalm 18:11 and 97:2 and speaks of God manifesting himself in the temple. 1 Kings 8:10 says, "the cloud filled the temple of the Lord." This imagery speaks of God's holy, divine presence. We have seen this imagery before. After leaving Egypt, God led his people through the desert. Exodus 13:21 says, "By day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night" (cf. Ex. 40:36-38). Then at Mount Sinai God revealed himself in a cloud (Ex. 19:9; 24:15-18). When the tabernacle was constructed, God covered it with the cloud of his glory (Ex. 40:34, 35; Lev. 16:2). This all speaks of God's presence! The use of such images of God in these ways was to instruct the people of that era - as it should be to us (Rom. 15:4). It should be understood that the visible revelation of God was sometimes in the context of a storm-like event (clouds, rain, thundering, darkness, etc.).I couldn't fit a full and proper explanation for your third question. But I think you can get the sense of it. Your turn. Good luck.