The alleged contradictions are varied and diverse in their nature. It would be a more efficient use of our keyboards to discuss the alleged contradictions with specific particularity.

I am not arguing that the old testament God is any different than the new testament God.

Though I gave a response, I am not certain your comment was intended to elicit one. If it was, please draft future comments in the form of a question.

The author chooses to describe the Bible's contradictions as clear contradiction; you feel they are 'apparent contradictions'. If the Bible were a regular book written by many authors the contradictions would be impossible to ignore, but you argue a better understanding of... the contex? or the material? will lead to a resolution of these contradictions. I personally don't see how.

I hope you're not arguing that the old testament was a meaner God who become less bloodthirsty by the new testament...

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
So... the moral authority for all of life is "ethical intuitions"? Would not those fail us as well? Sam Harris presupposes (without discussion) that men are basically, fundamentally good and that men will define and keep the proper moral standards based on their own "ethical intuitions". How does Sam Harris know that it is wrong to "paddle children" (as his diatribe implies)? Is it wrong to paddle children because the majority of people feel it is against their "ethical intuitions"? Do we need a poll to determine the morality of such events? How would such moral standards ever change over time if there is no set standard to which we may return, and the only 'standard' is current popular opinion? He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." The true problem Harris has is understanding the apparent contradictions in the Bible. Rather than seeking a greater understanding of these ostensibly conflicting Biblical mandates, he chooses to ridicule all religious positions without clarifying or even considering his own position. His position is, in fact, untenable.