Forgive me if this has been posted already, but while it isn't directly pointing out a contradiction, I think it is important to bring a historiographical perspective to this matter of bible contradictions. As most anyone who has actually engaged in serious textual criticism of the bible is probably aware, the historicity of many parts (most importantly the canonical gospels) is already suspect, for example due to authorship (Matthew seemingly derived from Mark, etc.), the testimony vs. testimonial distinction, etc. As such, if the bible is to be established as reliable evidence for the literal historical truth of some of Christianity's core claims (such as the resurrection, the very existence of Jesus, etc.), certain other parts are going to have to be ditched.
If two accounts of such and such event from two different texts contradict each other, sure, it may be logically possible to reconcile them, but in doing so one compromises whatever plausible historicity either text had, as one is now claiming the truth of an event distinct from that in either text. Note that this is distinct from constructing a more accurate account of events from multiple different testimonies, because in that circumstance the likely historicity of all the various sources is already established, and constructing a version of events that is somewhere in between those in the different testimonies is the only logical conclusion. But if the historicity of the texts is in question, we are only making things worse by trying to "resolve" apparent contradictions.
It's the fundamentalist attitude on proud display. One is so obsessed with the notion that the bible is perfect and literally true that one is willing to sacrifice whatever legitimate claims to historical authority the texts have.
If two accounts of such and such event from two different texts contradict each other, sure, it may be logically possible to reconcile them, but in doing so one compromises whatever plausible historicity either text had, as one is now claiming the truth of an event distinct from that in either text. Note that this is distinct from constructing a more accurate account of events from multiple different testimonies, because in that circumstance the likely historicity of all the various sources is already established, and constructing a version of events that is somewhere in between those in the different testimonies is the only logical conclusion. But if the historicity of the texts is in question, we are only making things worse by trying to "resolve" apparent contradictions.
It's the fundamentalist attitude on proud display. One is so obsessed with the notion that the bible is perfect and literally true that one is willing to sacrifice whatever legitimate claims to historical authority the texts have.
