trigs;356607 wrotei'm too lazy and sore (crushed my finger moving bricks today), so i won't be commenting on everything here. however, thought i'd add a good link about the specific bible content here:
Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon
easily anyone can see that there must be errors in the bible and strange additions to the bible. if god meant everything in there, he was really messed up.
I'm just lazy - so I admit to only looking at about 4 different pages on the Skeptics site.
1 - every biblical scholar and theologian knows all about these 'contradictions', etc.
2 - Some of them are super obvious; for example the genealogies in Matthew and Luke not matching or being 100% consistent. Now, the question is - does that make these books
more or
less likely to be completely made up? If I was putting a 'Bible' together for my fake religion, I'm pretty sure I'd clear up the glaring inconsistencies. This would indicate that the earliest christians considered the texts authentic - we're talking people whose grandparents or great-grandparents could literally have been witnesses to the events described.
3 - The whole Skeptics thing seems to be based on the King James Version; which while cutting edge in the 17th century, has been long surpassed in quality and accuracy of translation. In many cases because older (closer to the original) portions of some documents have been found.