Read through what I said again and consider the parts I mentioned about science. There are so many more things that the authors writing at the time would never have been able to tell unless directed by the Holy Spirit to write them. For example, God asks if Job can loose the bonds of the Pleiades or the belt of Orion. Both of those are, and are the only two known examples in existence that I'm aware of, constellations that are gravitationally linked. How is it that the one who recorded the book could have known that? The same goes for the foundains of the deep.

Going into other science, the Law of Entropy doesn't exclude biological processes just because it's convenient for the theory of evolution. In the process that would be required for the random formation of cells from nothing, water is a byproduct as demonstrated in laboratory experiments. Interestingly enough, the product, at that stage, is water soluable and would be immediately be undone without a protective cellular membrane that could only develop in an entirely different process.

Going further, if the big bang did occur, the distribution of mass within the solar system wouldn't be possible with the planets made of lighter gasses being further out than the core solid worlds like Earth. Beyond that, theories can't account for the force of rotation within creation and how one of the gas giants spins in the opposite direction from everything else. The current theory of how the moon formed is equally ridiculous and has changed at least five times over the years, each without any true evidence beyond hypothetical. Speaking of which, the lunar dust layer on the moon forms at a constant and measurable rate. If the moon were in fact millions of years old, the lander would have been buried in it when it landed.

Also, if the world and universe were billions or millions of years old, our sun would be in a later stage of life. As such, it exhibits the traits of a young star with much more fuel left unburned.

Another fun fact is that soft tissue is routinely discovered in the fossilized remains of dinosaurs. If they were millions of years old, that wouldn't be the case. They would only be that way if they were a matter of thousands of years old, consistent with the description of them being described as coexisting with man in the Bible as well as in ancient accounts from places like Egypt that describe flying lizards that lived in marshes that existed at the time (yes, backed up by geological evidence when the climate of the region was different). Though, as dinosaur is a relatively new term, I should point to the original word used to describe such creatures. Dragons.

All this and more points to one fact. That the Law of Entropy was not violated either by biological processes OR stellar forces. More advanced things cannot, and never have, come from less complex things. For things to become more complex or ordered both energy and instruction must be inserted into the equation from an outside source.

For example, when dogs were bred, it was discovered that genetic data was lost whenever a new breed is achieved. A short-legged dog isn't short-legged because new genetics were introduced. It's because the genes for long legs are broken and can no longer be expressed.

What appear as contradictions are, in many cases, simply two or more sets of data for which a common connection and/or purpose has not been found or discovered, whether the Bible or any other field.

For example, one might posit that the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems are contradictory, until one comes to realize that they serve a mutual common purpose of maintaining the systems of the body, together.

"The Bible is full of contradictions" premises a particular perspective on the bible, one that sees X and Y as contradictions. But it needs to be acknowledged that it is the perspective (aka the 'understanding') that makes or defines these 'contradictions'.

IMO, the theologies developed around the Bible have many contradictions, but that's a limitation of the theologies (aka the perspective/understanding) not the scripture itself.

That said, "truth" is (obviously) transcendent. The Bible is a text that expresses the 'truth', and I think it has to be recognized that the expression is not prefect in the sense that it covers all the bases. The scripture itself directly speaks to this fact itself in numerous places. Paul himself recognize the limitations of what he understood, and wrote about.

Answers to your "contradictions". If you are truly interested in research and truth have a look.

https://carm.org/the-bible/bible-difficulties/

Q literally told us to 'read the Bible' and 'it will be Biblical'. it's part of the syllabus. that being said, yes there's a lot of fluff, but that just helps to discern that poster's slant, which is always beneficial.