1) NO harmonisation can be possible for the scenario to qualify as a contradiction.
2) An author doesn't often completely lose his total train of thought just a few chapters later after writing something.
We see an example of that in Rintintin's attempt in John 5 and 8. He must think John suffered an aneurysm or something in between.
In John 5, Jesus states if he were to testify on his own behalf, his testimony would not be valid
In John 8 he then goes on to state that 'these claims are valid even though I make them about myself'
In John 5, Jesus refers to His submission to the Father and the Father's authority. He does nothing of His own initiative. Neither does Jesus' testimony stand alone nor His judgments b/c the Father is the One making those judgments first.
Jn 5:31: If I ***ALONE*** testify about Myself, My testimony is not true.
Jesus was talking about the requirement of the Law to have 2 and 3 witnesses. He was not saying "If I speak this testimony, then my testimony is untrue." He was saying "If I speak this testimony then my testimony is unconfirmed" b/c the Bible requires independent confirmation as the context makes plain.
He was saying that His testimony is true and you need independent confirmation to know that His test is confirmed.
The 2nd witness confirms it. My own testimony does not stand alone. If the 2nd witness is making a true testimony, then how could Christ's testimony be untrue?
Jn 8:16 - for it is not I ***ALONE*** who judge, but I and the Father who sent Me.
in John 7 he states that 'you work on the Sabbath too when you obey Moses law of circumcision' - this is wrong as it is in fact Abraham's covenant with God that is the reason for circumcision, not Moses', as stated in Genesis.
1) Your sentence structure leaves a bit to be desired.
2) Jn 7:21-23 - "Jesus answered them, 'I did one work, and you all marvel at it. Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well?'"
Why not quote the whole psg? Probably b/c you got these out of some lame source like the Skeptics' Annotated Bible or some atheism.about.com or some such. Shoddy.
In John 1: John explains that noone has ever seen God except for Jesus
yet in Genesis 32, Jacob names Peniel after the fact that he has seen God face to face (Peniel = face of God)
1 Timothy 6 helps us understand that it is the *Father* Who dwells in unapproachable light.
John 1's whole point is to express the deity of the Word, who is Christ, and who is with "God" in the beginning. Who is this "God" a reference to? The Father.
"No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." (John 1:18)
an example of God changing his mind is in Exodus 32:14 - "So the Lord withdrew his threat and didn't bring against his people the disaster he had threatened"
Where does it say anything about Him changing His mind? It says He didn't do what He had threatened. A threat is not necessarily a promise of action. In this case it acted as a stimulus to self-correction.
God is capable of changing his mind, so even if someone does exactly what God wants, they might still be looking forward to a pretty warm afterlife if God can change his mind whenever he wants for whatever reason.
God's decrees are eternal and He has decreed whatever comes to pass (Ephesians 1:10-11).
If you had brought up something like where God "repents of making man" or sthg like that, I'd've been happy to remind you that "to repent" there can also mean "to be sad".
Best of luck in your next and final attempt (since you seem to have used up 4 of your 5).