Yes, his “the bible contradicts itself” suggests the direction he goes in his search for facts about the bible.
If a supposed contradiction can be reconciled, then it is not a contradiction. Some reject any effort at reconciliation, because it disrupts their agenda of claiming that “the bible contradicts itself.”
My pastor gave a great sermon on Resurrection Sunday. In it he talked about honest doubt and dishonest doubt. The difference being an honest doubter will see the truth and accept it. Thomas is the best example of this. The dishonest doubter will never accept the truth. They will just come up with more questions, or reasons not to believe.
It's pretty easy to tell the difference. If we are talking with a doubter who thinks the Scriptures are just a collection of moral stories, or have contradictions, they will admit their error as they study and see the fulfillment of prophesy, historical accuracy and objective historical record that confirms facts. The dishonest doubter will ignore all that.
I think the size of the viewership for the series The Bible is a good indicator that there are a lot of people who would like to know the truth. The problem is the media believe their PC lies and wouldn't know the truth if it hit them on the head.
If a supposed contradiction can be reconciled, then it is not a contradiction. Some reject any effort at reconciliation, because it disrupts their agenda of claiming that “the bible contradicts itself.”
...I absolutely do not reject reconciliation, quite the contrary, I seek it avidly in the New Testament...yet that does not blind me to any contradictions or lack of independent confirmations...for instance, the Lucan and Matthean lineages for Jesus are completely at odds, and I’m not aware, though I could be wrong, that Paul references himself as Saul of Tarsus, as do the Lucan Acts of the Apostles, or in his corpus of epistles describes his event on the road to Damascus...if I am wrong about stuff like that I would like to be corrected, so please let me know...