>>17601488Contradictions aren't usually like that. What you're thinking about are textual variants.
For the most part, though, most big gay lists of contradictions are either a) total nit-pickery, or b) fundamental misunderstandings of the narrative progression of the bible.
Ehrman does a lot of column "A" because he's very specifically trying to argue against the sort of Southern Evangelicalism that's common in his home state of NC, and that sort of Christianity demands total historical inerrancy from the text. Because of this, his shit sounds patently stupid if you're not an inerrantist.
Like here:
https://ehrmanblog.org/contradictions-in-the-gospels/Ehrman basically tries to make the point that it's a major contradiction that in Mark, Jairus asks Jesus to heal his sick (not dead) daughter, but jesus gets delayed, and the girl dies before he gets there, and so he raises her from the dead, while in Matthew, Jairus' daughter is already dead and he came to ask Jesus to raise her from the dead.
Column "B" is common from normie faggot assed atheists who fall for it because they're illiterate and don't know much more about christianity than an 8 year old sundayschool student, since that's the last time they had religious education. Examples of this are here:
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/For the most part, these take "well no shit" situations like "pre-law patriarchs broke the law of moses" or "old testament law is contradicted in the new testament" and pretend that they're glaring contradictions, or it just cherry picks one-liners that on the surface contradict, but don't actually contradict in the context of the work (a lot of what they pull involving ecclesiastes is like this, as that's a fairly complex work).
For the most part, atheists are retards trying to argue that baptist god doesn't exist. To this ends, they make really really stupid arguments, which is befitting to people who are basically anti-baptists.
