So you're claiming the Bible doesnt contradict itself?
Okay, here we go again....
Mormons attacking the Bible, which is an admission that they don't believe the Bible.
Yet, it still has to qualify as doctrine to be considered doctrine.
What kind of nonsense is this, "qualify as doctrine"?
This is merely yet another excuse to justify rejecting Mormon "prophets" when you don't like what they've taught.
Like I've said before, the Prophets and apostles govern the Church.
Yes, this is a Mormon novelty.
In the Bible, "prophets" and "apostles" NEVER "governed the church".
The church was given to elders to govern.
And no, unlike false Mormon teachings, there's no relationship between "apostles" and "elders".
So again, this is based on the assumption no contradictions in the Bible. Yet, there are.
Let me tell you a little story.... In the first 3-4 years of my becoming a Christian, I ran across a few atheists in the discussion forums. And all they loved to do is try to quote "contradictions" in the Bible. And of course, they weren't even any good at it. They simply got their "contradictions" from Christian books such as Gleason Archer's "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" (Norman Geisler has written one as well), yet they simply IGNORE the resolutions. But they never cared. Once you explained why one example wasn't a contradiction, they didn't apologize, they didn't admit they were wrong, they simply gave three more. And when you reconciled those imaginary "contradictions", they simply tried to drown you with 10 more. They ALL had resolutions, but they tried to bury me with "quantity", rather than "quality".
My resolution to them was for them to give me only ONE "contradiction", the one that they thought was the BIGGEST "contradiction" which couldn't be reconciled. And if I could reconcile that one, then all the "easier" ones could be as well. Of course, they never accepted that challenge.
So let me share with you some common (and stupid) claims of "contradictions":
1) In Matthew and Luke, they list two different fathers for Mary. Wrong. One line is Mary's, the other is Joseph's.
2) Prov. 26 says both that we should, and that we shouldn't, answer a fool according to his folly. We're supposed to believe that Solomon contradicted himself from one verse to the next, and didn't even notice. No. It's a Catch-22 of sorts. There are ramifications if we don't act like the fool, and there are ramifications if we do (ie. to show him his folly).
3) The Old Testament has measurements for spherical baths, which when used to calculate pi, get a wrong value of "3". Well, "3" is an accurate value of pi, to one significant digits. When measuring something with "hands", you're not going to get very precise measurements.
4) Paul's conversion in Acts 9 and Acts 22 are contradictory. No, they're not. Acts 9 says his companions heard a voice, but saw no man. Acts 22 says they "saw a light, but heard not the voice". No contradiction. They saw a light, but didn't see men. They heard a voice, but didn't understand ("hear") it, likely it was in Hebrew.
You see, when people are intent on trying to "prove contradictions" in the Bible, they DEMAND that we hold interpretations which cause the interpretation, while when we're looking for truth, we need to give the source, or the author, the benefit of the doubt. That means that when there is more than one interpretation, we have to hold to the interpretation that is consistent, not the one that is allegedly "contradictory".
Further, most claims of "contradiction" are not true contradictions at all.
A contradiction takes the form of simultaneous assertions of:
But the vast majority of the time, when Bible haters (such as Mormons) claim "contradictions", what they generally claim are assertions of:
<some arbitrary premise that causes <X> and <Y> to be contradictory>
And so it is not <X> and <Y> which are truly contradictory, but the "arbitrary premise" which is false, without which there is no "contradiction".