Is there really contradictions in the Bible my thoughts on Bart Ehrman.

I been hearing a lot from mainstream scholars and theologians that the Bible cannot be trusted that their are more contradictions in the Bible than any other book written in history. Are they right or are they not? I believe they are not and seeing how most of these claims come from atheist I also I have to question the sincerity of their claims so I am going to write about the top ten I ran into this week alone and disprove each claim.

10 the Claim the the gospels Mark and Matthew do not match up on Jesus' death. The fact that Jesus talks in Matthew's account and does not say much in Mark. There's a reason for this first off Mark was not at his death to begin with. Many of his followers where hiding out only one was their and Mark was not a follower of his at the time. Second point I would like to make the book of Mark was written to the Romans and that is why it is so short because it was written like small hand book. Not only putting his teachings in a way Romans understand but also trying to get the important parts of his life and to show Jesus suffered for them.

9 is from a doctor by the name Bart Ehrman. the next ones will be about him.
“In terms of the historical record, I should also point out that there is no account in any ancient source whatsoever about King Herod slaughtering children in or around Bethlehem, or anyplace else. No other author, biblical or otherwise, mentions this event. Is it, like John's account of Jesus' death, a detail made up by Matthew in order to make some kind of theological point?” 
― Bart D. Ehrman

Now while true that their is no account of this occurring does not really mean much. Many things could of happen to documents or the bones maybe gone by now but what he does ingore is the pure evil of King Herod which proves he was capable of such a thing. Not only did he murder all most all of his sons but he murder his wife. He was also known to be paranoid. I mean if you have three wise men coming into his home and saying their is a new king. What will a paranoid going to do to all the children in that town.

8 the next claim I like to shoot down of his.

“In Matthew, Jesus declares, “Whoever is not with me is against me.” In Mark, he says,“Whoever is not against us is for us.” Did he say both things? Could he
mean both things? How can both be true at once? Or is it possible that
one of the Gospel writers got things switched around?” 

Jesus was talking about two different groups of people. When he said Whoever is not with me is against me it was in Luke 11:14-23 He was talking about people who stood against him. Like the false teachers. Here he was talking about an angry brust most likely from a pharisee. Which I do not need to mention him and those guys really did not get along all to well. Luke 9:49-50 Now here he is telling his disciples that look use your heads if these guys are using my name to heal than they are of God for only people with my father can do these things. Two different times in his life. Years apart but yet the claim that somehow this is a contradiction is still asked after he made this claim to this day. 

7 The next claim he makes.

“It is because in John’s Gospel we are not hearing two voices—the voice of Jesus and the voice of the narrator. We are hearing one voice. The author is speaking for himself and he is speaking for Jesus. These are not Jesus’s words; they are John’s words placed on Jesus’s lips.” 
― Bart D. Ehrman

John was one of the 12 so I do not know why he thinks he would not know Jesus and what he teached. I mean that is like saying someone sitting in his class taking notes on his words is really writing his own thoughts and their for Mr. Ehrman did not say any of that.

6 “It will become clear in the following chapters that Jesus was not originally considered to be God in any sense at all, and that he eventually became divine for his followers in some sense before he came to be thought of as equal with God Almighty in an absolute sense. But the point I stress is that this was, in fact, a development.” 

― Bart D. Ehrman,

Now this is simply not true. Peter says it out loud in Matthew 16:13-20

5 “I should point out that the Gospels do not indicate on which day Jesus was raised. The women go to the tomb on the third day, and they find it empty. But none of the Gospels indicates that Jesus arose that morning before the women showed up. He could just as well have arisen the day before or even the day before that—just an hour, say, after he had been buried. The Gospels simply don’t say.” 
― Bart D. Ehrman

That is because know one was in the tomb but Jesus himself said over and over again that I will die and be raised on the third day. Mark 9:31

4“If all this sounds familiar to Christian readers, it should. This man—here, the emperor—is a god whose birthday is to be celebrated because it brought “good tidings” to the world; he is the greatest benefactor of humans, surpassing all others, and is to be considered a “savior.” Jesus was not the only “savior-God” known to the ancient world.” 
― Bart D. Ehrman

Jesus said he was. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

3“But only two people known by name were also called “Son of God.” One was the Roman emperor—starting with Octavian, or Caesar Augustus—and the other was Jesus. This is probably not an accident. When Jesus came on the scene as a divine man, he and the emperor were in competition.” 
― Bart D. Ehrman

But one claim to be the Son of Yahweh and the other Jupiter. One was a fake god that does not have to do with the other. while yes they where competing in a sense but to compare the to is rather dishonest.

2  “The historical problems with Luke are even more pronounced. For one thing, we have relatively good records for the reign of Caesar Augustus, and there is no mention anywhere in any of them of an empire-wide census for which everyone had to register by returning to their ancestral home. And how could such a thing even be imagined? Joesph returns to Bethlehem because his ancestor David was born there. But David lived a thousand years before Joseph. Are we to imagine that everyone in the Roman Empire was required to return to the homes of their ancestors from a thousand years earlier? If we had a new worldwide census today and each of us had to return to the towns of our ancestors a thousand years back—where would you go? Can you imagine the total disruption of human life that this kind of universal exodus would require? And can you imagine that such a project would never be mentioned in any of the newspapers? There is not a single reference to any such census in any ancient source, apart from Luke. Why then does Luke say there was such a census? The answer may seem obvious to you. He wanted Jesus to be born in Bethlehem, even though he knew he came from Nazareth ... there is a prophecy in the Old Testament book of Micah that a savior would come from Bethlehem. What were these Gospel writer to do with the fact that it was widely known that Jesus came from Nazareth? They had to come up with a narrative that explained how he came from Nazareth, in Galilee, a little one-horse town that no one had ever heard of, but was born in Bethlehem, the home of King David, royal ancestor of the Messiah.” 
― Bart D. Ehrman, 

but their is proof that it did happen and the Historian  Josephus Proved it to be true. They called it the Census of Quirinius

1 I will just leave this battle with one of his quote and I think he is really talking about himself here because it is very clear to me that Bart Ehrman wants to believe so badly that the Bible is not provable that he wants to grasp at straws. 

“You can’t believe something just because someone else desperately wants you to.” 
― Bart D. Ehrman,