"Consistency: This is a quote from David Guzik, "How could God "hate" Esau?"
Well, it's not really relevant what a commentator said. The Bible uses the word hate to define God's feelings towards Esau and is therefore in contradiction with other statements in that self same document. If you insist on using the bible as proof for various things having happened, you must accept the bible, not someone else's interpretation of it, when it contradicts itself.
Genealogies. Your point is non-sensical. It seeks, in the same manner of conspiracy theories, to fit bend reality to fit a pre-determined conclusion - in this case, that Jesus is decended from David. The arguement given in the link seems to work, but is not logical. If genealogy is traced via a particular kinship line, then that is how it is traced, whether that line is matrilineal, patrilineal or something else. It is not conceivable that two accounts written within a relatively few years of each other, by men from the same culture would use such radically different genealogies, yet fail to identify their use of a non-standard methodology. It makes no sense, given the document is supposed to be accecssible to every person, rather than an educated class.
I don't know enough about the use of the word grave, and there are certainly mistranslations throughout the bible - Mary being a virgin being the key one, whereas the original word merely meant young unmarried woman (specifically 'maiden') - so I'll accept it, but it's not the only confusion on the issue of raising from the dead by any imagination.
Squirrel addressed your point about evolution quite adequately, so no point in me mentioning more at the mo.
In your discussion of the creation, you simply prove that you understand the 6 days to be metaphorical.