Had my first look at an infidels.org page.

[Darth Wong]

Then again, he also said "Forgive them father, they know not what they do" at the same exact time in another telling.

And he said "It is done" in yet another telling. It's always amazed me that the most pivotal moment in all of Christian theology is not consistent between the Gospels and yet millions of Christians persist in assuming that every Gospel is accurate.

Simple (to them). One writer was at a different reference point and may not have seen when Jesus spoke certain phrases. What they wrote was what they saw, . . and putting them together gives us the entire scenario.

That's what happens when you let people dismiss certain obvious explanations out of hand for no reason other than their refusal to admit Biblical fallibility. Can they even explain what kind of "reference point" would allow someone to clear hear someone say "It is done" but somehow completely miss him crying out to his Lord and father?

Yeah, seems unlikely. Same as who actually showed up at the tomb the first time.

The problem with people like this is that the conventional method of demontrating an inconsistency doesn't work on them. You can show two contradictory aspects of the stories and while this would normally lead to a confession of inconsistency, the True Believer considers "The Bible is infallible" to be a fact, as rock-solid as the ground beneath his feet. So in his mind, he has to rationalize that "fact" with the other facts that you just raised, and of course, it is impossible for that rationalization to ever come to a conclusion of inconsistency. Why? Because Biblical consistency is one of the "facts" that must be explained by the conclusion!

[Magnetic]

And he said "It is done" in yet another telling. It's always amazed me that the most pivotal moment in all of Christian theology is not consistent between the Gospels and yet millions of Christians persist in assuming that every Gospel is accurate.

Simple (to them). One writer was at a different reference point and may not have seen when Jesus spoke certain phrases. What they wrote was what they saw, . . and putting them together gives us the entire scenario.

That's what happens when you let people dismiss certain obvious explanations out of hand for no reason other than their refusal to admit Biblical fallibility. Can they even explain what kind of "reference point" would allow someone to clear hear someone say "It is done" but somehow completely miss him crying out to his Lord and father?

Yeah, seems unlikely. Same as who actually showed up at the tomb the first time.

The problem with people like this is that the conventional method of demontrating an inconsistency doesn't work on them. You can show two contradictory aspects of the stories and while this would normally lead to a confession of inconsistency, the True Believer considers "The Bible is infallible" to be a fact, as rock-solid as the ground beneath his feet. So in his mind, he has to rationalize that "fact" with the other facts that you just raised, and of course, it is impossible for that rationalization to ever come to a conclusion of inconsistency. Why? Because Biblical consistency is one of the "facts" that must be explained by the conclusion!

Funny that you should say that. On the other (christain) forum, there's a guy who actually said that (paraphrasing) "because the evidence seems to indicate longer time than 6,000 years, . . . then that can only mean that the earth was completely different in the beginning (before sin entered the world), along with different "laws of physics", including much faster light travel, much quicker cooling magma, etc...."

Oh heck, I'll just give some quotes as examples:

Matter in the past must have cooled fast. We see the seperation of waters from land in Gen 1. If this happened today we would be cooked. Just like if the continents seperated fast, it would now cause great heat. Therefore matter was different, and cooled fast in the past.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You can't argue with a person like this about his conclusion, because while he may give the superficial appearance of debating, it is quite literally impossible to disprove his conclusion to him because as far as he's concerned, it's not a conclusion; it's an indisputable fact, ie- an observation. It would be like expecting me to believe that the Sun doesn't exist. It's right there, I can see it. And that's the way he treats Biblical infallibility.