The act of apologetics has been designed to deflect any critical look at scripture. As our debate has shown, one may infer or use historical context or other method to come to a conclusion. But if we are to be strict in our observation, are we to take the aformentioned or are we to read the scripture as written. If as written, then clearly the scripture does not match. If through apologetics, then one may assume either through fact or conclusion discord between scripture can be explained away. Some apologetic explanations change over time while others has so far withstood the test of time or a better challenge or explanation has not been developed.
Of course the biggest and safest apologetic use is to state in many cases the view you did, which is one person saw A and one person saw B and neither told a compete story or it was a story from their perspective. And in most cases, since scripture wasn't written as it happened, but often several years later.....well you know what happens.
I know exactly what happened:
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26 KJV)
You can't chalk it up to faulty memory. Unless you want to accuse the Holy Spirit of giving these people false memories. I would strongly urge that you resist any temptation to do that!!!
The scripture is inspired. The scripture is true.
Now are you going to start that thread? Let's see if the freepers here can resolve any doubts about the inerrancy of scripture. I suspect that with God's help we are up to the challenge.
Go for it.