The Bible has no contradictions

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it is possible that Cain married his sister or a niece? And that therefore the question about who Cain married is not evidence either way for Biblical accuracy?--Percy

That's one possible interpretation. The other, of course, is the one already mentioned, that they are two separate accounts appended one to the other. The evidence indicates different authors, both stylistically, in choice of vocabularly, and the way in which God is referenced. This is consistent with the division of Israel into two kingdoms, the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern of Judah, not long after David. The same forces driving the political division combined with divergent religious views, especially in the northern kingdom of Israel which had to make theological adjustments since they now lacked free access to temple in Jerusalem, also caused a split in the religious stories. The two versions were later brought together after the Babylonian exile.What evidence do you have that your interpretation is correct, especially in light of all the contrary evidence that creation did not take place as described in either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?--Percy

What qualities do the Biblical accounts possess that differentiates them from the myths of other cultures? These would have to be differences that somehow indicate that the events of the Bible actually happened and that those of other myths are fictional.--Percy

As others have already noted, that's not much of a reply. Perhaps we're missing something. What was it about that link that seemed convincing to you?The link also doesn't address the issue we were discussing. Here's the relevant exchange again: --Percy

I may have this wrong, but Satcomm may be trying to draw a distinction between holy canon, which is the word of God and therefore inerrant, and written religious traditions, which are only the words of men and thereby fallible.--Percy

Hi Conspirator!We have no doubt that you can produce interpretations and explanations for every Biblical "problem" to explain away the contradictions. The problem for you is demonstrating that your interpretation is the correct one. In the case of the donkey accounts, your interpretation of Matthew is merely an unlikely rationalization and hardly as credible as the possibility of misinterpretation of prophecy by Matthew.--Percy

Hi Paul,Mt 22:62 doesn't exist, you probably meant Mt 27:62 where it describes the day after Jesus's crucifixion as The next day, the one after Preparation Day... Thus, according to Matthew Jesus died on Preparation Day. Thus the order of events according to Matthew was (when referring to a 24-hour day beginning at midnight I say simply day, but when referring to a day beginning at sunset I put day in bold italics):

• Day before Passover during the daytime: preparation by disciples for Passover (Mt 26:17).
  ​
• 1st day of Passover, evening of same day: the Last Supper, Jesus is arrested. Referred to as Preparation Day in Mt 27:62.
  ​
• 1st day of Passover, but the next day: trial of Jesus before Pontius Pilate followed by the crucifixion and the death of Jesus. This would still be Preparation Day.
  ​
• 1st or 2nd day of Passover: Jesus is placed in a tomb toward evening, impossible to tell if this was done before sunset, and so impossible to tell if it took place on the 1st or 2nd day of Passover.
  ​
• 2nd day of Passover, the next day: Pharisees request that tomb be made secure (Mt 27:62-64).

This means the Preparation Day was *not* the day before Passover, but was the first day of Passover. According to Matthew Jesus's disciples prepared for the Passover meal on the day before Preparation Day, and ate that Passover meal at the beginning of Preparation Day, which was the evening of the same 24-hour day. Passover had begun, and the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Young's Bible Dictionary concurs: --PercyPS - In what I've written above I've interpreted the Matthew passages as if every day referred to is one that begins at sunset, but there are more than a few contexts where this interpretation seems shaky at best. If the text actually *does* move back and forth between different meanings of the word day then other interpretations are possible.