Then I see our disagreement.

I think and you are welcome to disagree, even if the intent is to call coal dirty and you provide an example, you would give an actual example of it being dirty.

If I don’t want to argue the obvious and just want to call the coal dirty. I wouldn’t provide an example because that is the whole point of “calling the coal dirty”, it doesn’t need to be explained.

If I would choose to provide an example, I would provide an actual example.

If we assume his intent was to call coal dirty and he choose to provided an example of the bible being contradictory, I expect the example is actually contradictory. That was what I was arguing.

And I think his example fails, as even in a literal reading, there are interpretations that work just fine without creating contradictions, e.g. a day is ~24hr; and god needed x hrs, or y days. All of us might doubt that it is the intended meaning of the word by the author. But that is our doubts and not a contradictions.

My nonsense was strictly to highlight my point that whether or not, we think it makes sense for someone to act a way, is irrelevant when talking about contradictions.

I hope this helps to understand my intentions. I would be happy to hear your thoughts.