pshaw
Scribbled:
Corrections:
"All four of them were apostles."
Luke was not an apostle. He mentions in the first four versus of his book that this is a collection of accounts. He never traveled with Jesus.
"They all recorded the most important events, such as the last supper, the crucifixion of Jesus, and the resurrection of Jesus."
Note: Mark never recorded the resurrection of Jesus. That account was added late by someone other than Mark.
In the answer to #26, you claim that Luke gives the genealogy through Mary. The versus of Luke clearly state that the chain is composed of fathers and sons. Mary is never mentioned. To claim that this is the genealogy of Mary simply because Hebrew genealogies did not mention women is without any historical support. Matthew's genealogy mentions several women, and his book was intended to be read by Jewish people. This is a glaring, forever unresolved contradition of the Bible. One (or both) genealogies must be wrong. Same goes with your answer for #27, #28, and #29.
In #30, the Hewbrew people have a word for "son", so they used it. Do not try to change the meaning of a word so you can maintain your delusion that the Bible is without contradition. Same with #31.
In #32, have you considered that Matthew was just bad a counting?
In #46, you claim that Matthew rearranges events based on their importance. Appartently, Matthew also changes the event itself, because your answer does not clear up the fact that the two writers are conflicted over whether the fig tree withered instantly or over a period of time. Notice how the apostles' reactions are different in each story. Someone changed their reactions as well. This is a contradiction as well. Beacuse Jesus is making a theological issue out of this story, it is difficult to overlook these errors as trivial.
In #61, you claim that the rope that Judas used to hang himself snapped. There is no evidence to support this claim. It is merely convienent for clearing up a contradiction. The two versions of the story are compelling enough that if both were really true, then both writers would know about it and both writers would record the events, thus improving the historical accuracy. It makes more sense to say that than to say "Then the rope snapped," which is a claim for which we have no evidence.
Some of your answers are correct. Translation errors mostly. Of course, this brings up a good question: If this really is the word of God, couldn't God prevent little things like translation errors? It turns out that he either (A) can't or (B) doesn't feel that it is important. Since many people argue to this day over little things like translation errors, I think God needs to hire an official copy editor and get to work.
