Biblical Prayer Contradictions

[Godscreated]

Paul always said He was not speaking for or from himself, He said he was speaking from Christ. Besides what's this thing you're saying mean, "we're talking about Jesus and Paul, Paul's authority comes from Christ. You're not making much sense. 

His authority comes from Christ and he directly contradicts what christ says. Got it. 

How am I suppose to get something that's not been proven, you've made the claim and I showed that your claim was wrong. You have not tried to make a stand for your claim, other than a little quip after I've proven you wrong.

None of the accounts give the same number of women going to the tomb, why should they and why would that be important, the writers recorded this as they saw things to be important. This is a ploy atheist use to draw attention away from what was really important, the resurrection of Christ and that was what the writers were writing about, not women. You need to pay attention to the subject at hand and in this case it was the resurrection. I'm sure many women went to the tomb, some just didn't see the necessity of mentioning them all. None of the accounts say that "only one went."

Bingo. I was looking for the problem you couldn't solve by going 'its metaphorical' or stretching the interpretation, and here it is.

Bingo that's your argument, not very strong. There was no metaphorical or stretch of the interpretation, it was the way things were written. Many accounts of history ( suppose to be completely factual ) give different accounts of numbers, people involved and places things happened, do we discount the historical event, certainly not, why? Historians knew places by different names, they gave number accounts that was important as they saw them and mentioned only the people they saw as important for the record. I totally understand this is how history is recorded, apparently you will dismiss all of history that has been written this way, due to the claim you make about the ladies who went to the tomb and how it was recorded. In my estimation you are looking for the Bible to be a 100% historically all inclusive recording of history, if this is what you are looking for then you want find it, the Bible was never intended to be a historical record, it's a book of spiritual life for those who accept Christ as their savior. Yes the Bible has many historical accounts in it, but only for the purpose of God's relationship with His people. By your own requirements for the Bible most of ancient history should be tossed.

So, since we finally arrived at the conclusion there are obviously human mistakes in an allegedly divinely inspired text, why do you think that is? 

You have arrived at a conclusion, a false one at that, dance around all you want you still haven't come up with any evidence for your claims, none, nada. There were no human mistakes made by the original writers and yes it is divinely inspired. The problem is you have a problem understanding what divinely inspired means.

Why is an omnipotent god incapable of writing a perfect book?

Could it be because it was written by humans, not god?

You're right the Bible was written by the hand and mind of men, you're wrong about God writing the Bible. God inspired the men to write the accounts within the Bible, they wrote what they saw as important and the Holy Spirit made sure they did not misrepresent the accounts and that the truth was written down. Just because you want to see each written account say the exact same thing doesn't mean the accounts are in no way untruthful. As a matter of fact if they had been written that way you would say they were just copies of one writing and actually that's what some say about the gospel accounts just because they are very similar. So you will argue from any position, because you do not want the Bible to be true, it being true would mean you would be in eternal trouble.

GC