Flaws in the Scriptures

quote:

---

Because this is my thread I can set the conditions.

---

Actually, once it was posted here it became everyone's thread. But I agree with your point - you have a certian purpose to the thread, and an idea of what you want to converse about, and so we should respect that.My serious flaw is the different resurrection accounts in the Gospels: Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary come to the tomb, an earthquake rolls the stone away, an angel sits on it, the guards faint, and the angel speaks to the women outside the tomb. Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary, and Salome come to the tomb, the stone is already moved, an angel is sitting inside the tomb. Luke: Several women, identified later as Mary Magdalen, Mary, Joanna, and at least two others, unnamed, came to the tomb, the stone was already rolled away, two men appear to them. John:Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb alone, sees the stone rolled away, leaves and tells Peter, Peter and another disciple come to the tomb, leave, and two angels then appear to Mary, as does Jesus himself.Now, for the Biblical literalists, this is supposed to be a recent historical event, the most important in Christianity, and even, according to the Christians, in the history of the world, and they can't get this story straight? Even with God guiding the writers? Even though Matthew, Mark, and John knew each other and spoke to each other afterwards?[This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-16-2003][This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 11-16-2003]

I don't see how getting a consistent description of a supposed historical event is supposed to be "cheating". If I had students write papers describing an event that they were supposedly witnesses to and there accounts were this different, especially since they knew each other and had time to discuss it among themselves, this kind of differences would be disturbing.Remember, the question is whether we have any reason to believe the the Bible can be accepted literally, and can be considered inerrant.