The Bible is reliable

The Donkeys Rebuttal: You are correct, I did say that it was possible that Mark focused on one Donkey and Matthew on two. I used the word "perhaps" because no one knows why they chose to report the events they did in the way they did. However, my argument as stated is that they are free to report anyway they seem fit and that the two accounts do not contradict each other in the end. In any court of law you will often find that you get two witnesses that recall the same event but do not express it exactly the same. Is someone lying? No not necessarily. The differences in the accounts are actually evidence that the writers truthfully recorded the events as they recount it. However, the two stories are including and excluding information that makes it impossible to qualify the different stories as a contradiction. What the writers actually heard is arbitrary and how they report it was up to their discretion. If there was four different Gospels written exactly the same and included exactly the same material then what is the use of having four? The issue is not what Jesus said as you claim; it is what the writers reported He said based on their perception of the intended meaning of His words. The two writers reported what they thought is applicable to their narrative. They are under no obligation to report the exact same words. The phenomenon is also known as the Rashomon effect. "The effect of the subjectivity of perception on recollection, by which observers of an event are able to produce substantially different but equally plausible accounts of it." http://www.yourdictionary.com.... The Rashomon effect obviously creates problems for those who observe it but it does demonstrate that seemingly contradictory recollections are not necessarily so and that both accounts may be valid and true. In this case, the problem here is that the conclusion you draw is based on your perceptions that relies on a limited amount of information and no clear statements to make either account the ONLY true account without a doubt. I maintain that the two accounts are plausible and that it was not the intention of the writers to recall the exact same details and that no contradiction can be reasonably be established. Egypt and the Exodus rebuttal: I did not miss the point. I pointed out that you use the word "maybe" and now again "estimate" to establish a number for the population. That is speculation and makes your argument improbable unless you can determine factual and actual numbers. I stated that your argument is "impaired" before you even began because of the speculation your argument is based on to determine a population number. If you have the "original Hebrew" then you have something no one else has had for thousands of years. Perhaps you should have specified which Hebrew you refer to in order for me to rebut it properly. You stated that there is no evidence for the destruction that occurred not the Exodus. I argued that the destruction that occurred was not as massive as you make it out to be which would substantiate my conclusions rather than yours. I have mentioned that Egypt conquered many nations and flourished in the slave trade. This would require many Egyptians and also soldiers to be located out of Egypt to oversee the said affairs. If you study the conquests in history you will find that the nations who attacked the other ones would sent the majority of their armies to the front and only leave a minority at home. This seriously draws your speculation into question to estimate a total number for the Egyptians alive at the time. You talk about Egypt and estimate a number but what about the rest of the world that they conquered and stationed their armies in and sent their citizens to in order to oversee their affairs? Could it be possible that these expat citizens returned to help rebuilt Egypt? I say yes. Your estimation is partial and do not reflect the true situation of the Egyptian population at the time and therefore your argument is flawed on this basis. As for evidence for the Exodus: If the account is factual then we would expect to find artefact's of some kind on the bottom of the Red Sea right? There are many different websites that posts photos and even video footage of chariot structures etc. preserved in coral at the bottom of the red Sea. I would say that is evidence for the Exodus. http://www.wnd.com... Thanks for the Debate!