Geneis 1 is an Elohist source text because the word for GOD used here in Hebrew is ELOHIM
(literally "the Gods", which is to be taken as a pluralis majestatis - like a
king or queen in a decree would use WE when referring to him/herself).

Genesis 2 uses the term JAHWEH in Hebrew and thus is a Jahwist source text.

Nothing in Genesis can agree on many issues, for example, what came before Adam, (birds, trees etc). Genesis 1 says that Adam and Eve were created at the same time, yet Gen 2 says that Eve was created sometime later. Genesis also contradicts itself by stating that god was pleased / not please with his creation of the garden of eden.

Noah was a 600-year old geriatric, yet we are supposed to believe that he managed the food, diet and living quarters of thousands of animals.

Translation errors concede that Mary was not in fact a virgin, but a woman of marriageable age.

The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus - and all four Gospels contradict each other regarding Christ's last moments and resurrection.

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the subject of Jesus Christ's father, (although agree that Joseph was not his real father).
Matthew says that astronomers came to visit the baby Jesus, yet Luke quotes them as being shepherds, and Matthew, Luke and John all quote Jesus' last words on the cross as being completely different from each other. -The list goes on.......

Contradictions are somewhat understandable for a random collection of documents, but not for something portrayed as a carefully constructed treatise, allegedly put together in order to convince the masses that it's really a 'well thought out plan'.

So, how do the pea-brains explain these disagreements and contradictions? - Easy.......

'Oh, it's a metaphor.' In other words, what is written is not what is really meant. Absolutely hilarious! Especially for people who decide what is not to be understood as anything other than the absolute 'word of god', which of course, just so happens to go along with whatever it is that they happen to want at that particular time.

Then they will say something like - 'It has to be taken in context'. Well hang on, didn't you just say that it's a metaphor? Again, hilarious. How can you cite clear context when using a metaphor? Well that's because the same pea brains love to push extracted verses that just happen to support their particular viewpoint. Usually it's just one of the verses found in the contradictory text that is supposed to be understood as being 'the truth', yet if you add more, it suddenly becomes 'out of context.' (John 3-16 anyone?)

'Oops! That's obviously a translation error!' - Which really means that the pea brains are not disagreeing with biblical events as such, they are disagreeing with what is written. A laughable attempt at misdirection to the fact that the bible itself is wrong.

'It was a miracle!' Yeah, of course it was, pea brain - that's why it is stated as fact.

And then there's the stock-standard reply that god works in mysterious ways. This has become the perfect escape for the pea brains, especially in situations when they don't understand the conflict between what the bible says, and what they wish it said.