The first people to point out the contradictions were believing scholars two hundred and fifty years ago. This question is really about why atheists don’t believe in God and the Bible. It asks me to delve into the psychological make-up of strangers I have never met. The best I can do is latch onto the familiar themes I see in the answers already posted in this thread. Norman Geisler is listed by John Simpson as being “one of the top Christian defenders alive today.” Simpson says Geisler was his teacher.
I know Geisler and am very familiar with his theology as taught by William Lane Craig et al. Geisler wrote (and I read the book cover to cover), in which he makes a number of arguments regarding the reason atheists don’t believe in God.
I used to believe those arguments WHILE I WAS A CHRISTIAN. When I lost my faith in an invisible intangible God, it was not at all like Geisler—and Christians and their Bible—say. Simpson says he knows philosophy and apologetics and that he “can provide various evidences (e.g. historical, archaeological, philosophical, prophetic, etc.) as to why the Bible is trustworthy and should be believed.” He seems to have cut and pasted keys pieces from his PhD dissertation into his answer as proofs. What he fails to do is nail the questions that burned my consciousness and sense of righteousness for decades, so long as I professed belief in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, belief in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
In other words, Simpson—as well as Geisler and all the rest—does not ask atheists why they believe what they do. He disbelieves that we would provide an honest answer because our answers don’t jibe with his so-called knowledge of why we don’t believe. I know this because of the accusations against atheists in Geisler’s book, and in the Bible and from Christians in general.
Simpson’s argument is a water-tight bubble in a much larger universe of reality. But one cannot argue rationally with a person who discounts this larger reality. In fact, one might question whether this larger reality is God. It is when one discusses the fine philosophical details that it becomes evident that Christians of Simpon’s (and Geisler’s and Craig’s) type do not see God as this “larger reality” that is the universe. Instead, they see the universe as existing in the palm of God’s hand, a creation of God’s that exists completely separate from the Creator. The problem is that they discount much of what is known about the universe in order to make it fit into God’s palm and the Bible.
So the reason some believers do not see the contradictions is that they dare not. They MUST explain away the contradictions. Their eternal salvation depends on it. There is eternal hell to pay if they don’t.