A general topic on "what started it all..."

[Ryft]

In which case, since there is no consistency, it would be a more valid explanation to say that there is no consensus therefore no value in scriptural research

It follows from this reasoning that the existence of differing scientific methods which lead to inconsistent results means there is no consensus and, therefore, no value in scientific research. For there surely are different scientific methods, including (as my post was candid enough to admit) really bad ones. Now we shall observe whether your response commits a No True Scotsman fallacy ("those aren't really scientific methods"), or a Special Pleading fallacy ("my criticism applies only to religious issues"), or honestly admits that, although some people use bad methodologies they think are scientific, it has no bearing on the value of scientific research—the same way bad scriptural methods have no bearing on scriptural research.