Actually, many chronological inconsistencies are the result simply of bad translation. Some passages which read, in English, as "Later," actually should be translated, "Another time." The ordering of events of the gospels was not based on chronological sequence, but a systematic explanation of themes.
I don't really want to argue, but if different books had been chosen for inclusion into the Bible, different "truths" would be Biblical.
I fail to see to see why only those in third and fourth centuries had the ability to decide what would be included in the Bible. And why their decisions can never be second-guessed.
Why can't more books be added to Bible today?
It's this weird reverence to history that is somewhat puzzling to me.
We agree it wasn't dictated by God. We agree that it was compiled by men.
We agree that there are translation errors.
Many people will argue that every single word is inspired and infallible. Their belief is okay with me, but I don't subscribe to it.