Teach me about contradictions

[John V]

I'm confused.
That's twice now you have said it's a contradiction yet you voted no it's not a contradiction.

You just said " I wouldn't conclude that the person was a liar or delusional based on the contradiction"

And earlier you said it could be a contradiction.

You went from saying no it isn't, to saying it could be, to saying it is but the person making the contradiction isn't delusional. Which is fair enough but the question wasn't if the person was delusional or not.

Maybe my position can be summed up as, "Yes, it's a contradiction...so what?"

In a religious context, the point of trying to establish a contradiction is generally to challenge inerrancy. If you establish a difference between statements, you've established a contradiction, but not necessarily a contradiction which challenges inerrancy. It could be that the difference is due to different audiences, different circumstances, etc. These do not challenge inerrancy. So, it seems that you're using a broad definition of contradiction, while your interlocutors are using this more specific meaning.