Conflicting statements in the bible

[Tex]

Yes. The Day of Preparation begins on the evening of the day before and ends the following evening when passover begins. "John" (or whoever) understood this much better than you.

Then I see no problem. He was crucified on day of Preparation and then died when the day changed. The terms are correct. I'm really confused at to what your argument is.

What? It is not consistent with Matty. And the other two didn't give a shit about the nativity story.

Luke himself contradicts based on the math I gave. Jesus cannot be both 23 and 30 at the same time. Therefore, since it also doesn't match the other accounts, I'm thinking he wasn't born while Quinirus was governor in Galilee and Luke messed up. There was a census in 6 A.D., but it wasn't the one Jesus was born on.

A silly argument. One book says one thing and the other books say something else. That is what "contradiction" means. I am not interested in determining which account is right or wrong. I think they are all horseshit. I am merely pointing out to you that your allegedly inerrrant holy books tell different stories. This then becomes your problem and I see you have chosen to put your holy blinders on and pretend that reality does not exist. Again, your problem.

A silly argument? I guess all books ever written are wrong because they don't include all the possible data. My latin book only contains actual latin sentences from famous historians/philosophers/politicians/theologians, etc.. I guess all latin is wrong. My science book in 12th grade included physics that my sister's didn't have. I guess those are both wrong too. Your argument is a silly argument. "I don't like the way they look" is not a silly argument.

This ignored it and "said nothing to anyone." Period. The story ended at that point until later scribes found that unsatisfying and made some rather silly additions to it.

So what? The additions aren't wrong. They are written later into mark, but are in the other gospels. Who cares if they added the ending of the story.

And they obviously told people since, you know, people know now. Duh.

On top of that, as already explained, they were told, "...tell Peter and the disciples". I think they ONLY told Peter and the disciples.

Now, you're getting warmer.

You're a troll, not a scholar.

By George....now you are getting it.

Different stories for different audiences at different times.

YES, YOU GOT IT!!!

And all of them a load of crap.

Oh, nevermind.

---

@ Statler Wardolf
The guy thinks there's aliens controlling it all. Probably believes the Assassins Creed theology. Pay him no mind.

Tex, do you agree that the Bible is not literal and should be considered fiction?

No.

If not, how can you believe in the Bible's literal statements and take it seriously with so many controdictions?

1) It is a piece of literature. There are historical statements, yes, and then there are other literary devices used.

2) I have yet to see a literal statement be wrong to the extent that it actually affects the bible's worth. No, King Saul did not reign at 1 year old and die at 2 years old. There is an error. However, Saul's age doesn't matter. It doesn't affect anything.

3) If you can find a contradiction that actually affects Christian teachings or some big doctrine, I'll give you more credit, but right now the large majorities of "contradictions" are so insignificant it truly looks as if people want the bible to look as bad as possible rather than investigating it objectively.