My book report pt1

[Faith No More]

This is the failure in your analisis. Mark and John were trying to convey the SAME MESSAGE not a different one. They simply approached it in different ways.
Again the people Mark could have been focousing one may have been a little more educated and wanted structure in their account, while John spoke to the guys who like action movies over a documentry.

That wasn't really the relevant part to what I was talking about. Why you decided to break that off is beyond me. I just was pointing out that you claimed that they were relaying the tales differently. I said "different message," which may not have been technically correct, but my intention was that they were telling the message in a different manner. Regardless, your rebuttle wasn't really relevant to the point at hand.

He is judgeing them by the standard Mark used which is a chronicological accounting of said events. When clearly John is not giving a Chronological retelling as witnessed by the temple events being placed at the front of his book. even in light of this events misplacement he continues to force the assumption that John and Mark's accounts are ment to be read as sequential events. When by the very placement of these same stories placed at either ends of the respective accounts dictates otherwise.

Here you are simply saying that the discrepancy at hand is proof that the standard of judgement is false. The claim is that the sequence of events do not agree. Your defense is that on of them isn't chronological. The proof you offer of your defense is the very discrepancy in question, which leaves you going in circles. You must demonstrate that one is not intended to be chronological without referencing the discrepancy...

and in that I expressly implied that John was not giving a history lesson in that his telling of Christ was not the sequencial order, yet Bart insists they were. The fact that they are not in order and the fact no one who compiled the bible put them in order suggests that neither book is in the wrong here. which means that they are to be read and accepted as written/John was not meant to repersent a chronological order of the events of Christ.

...which you attempt to do here, but simply state that the bible was not compiled in order. The problem is that how the bible was compiled has no bearing on each individual author's intention.

Let say someone asks you to describe a group of people standing over on a street corner, and you look and say there are 7 asian men and 3 women standing there. Another may say there are 10 'orenitals' (which is a racist term because orential describes a thing and not a person) standing over there, Then i may be asked the same question and Ill say there are 2 japanese men, 3Han Chineese men, 2 Tu women, 1 Han Korean woman(most likly north Korean) 2 korean men standing on that same corner.

Now who is right?

According to Bart we all can't be right because we did not describe the identical same thing, using the same identical words.

When if fact we simply described what we saw using all of what we have been given to understand. In other words we are all right to one degree or another, the variances we report are not because we are trying to describe something false, but rather we describe what we understand we saw. The more we understand the deeper the description.

Except it's not as though there is simply a discrepancy in what types of beings were present. They can't even agree on the number of beings, so your argument about labels isn't relevant.

DWell, i find your quote to be inadequate.
How you like dem apples?

I only like fujis.

what does this have to do with what is being discussed?

It was a restatement of my original point.