If you start out with the premise that every word of the bible is the absolute "gospel truth", then any discrepancy must mean that it is all questionable. If you are to stick to your initial premise.
However, if you believe that the popular method of teaching of the time was by allegory, then it all makes more sense.
Yes but not everyone has an identical view of events. Some are second hand accounts.
And omissions of certain details that others report doesn’t mean it’s false. If anything different accounts shows the accounts are genuine. It’s what you expect if you interview people witnessing something from their vantage points. Some may say things others cannot. That doesn’t make the accounts false because they all don’t have all the same things mentioned.
Further there are no points in any of the accounts that contradict another. This would be an obvious source atheists would have jumped on immediately as “proof” of it being a false account. Since all the accounts never have a point of conflict, they’ve had to go on this fishing expedition of saying that if all the acounts aren’t identical and they’re false because they all don’t mention the same things they must be false. that isn’t how it works.
The accounts are true, they agree with each other where their evidence overlaps. They are absolutely true. True doesn’t mean 4 authors across time and some writing the account not from firsthand knowledge, are not going to have identical accounts. They all agree where they speak of the same particulars. Not speaking of every single detail doesn’t somehow “make it false”. that isn’t a logical premise in the first place.
If I discuss an event I see, and describe the event, and someone else was there and describes the event, and adds in what the weather conditions at the event were like that day, and I didn’t, that doesn’t affect the truth in my statements or the other persons. If another witness who knew someone in the event describes the event, and adds in some information about one of the participants maybe we don’t know, that doesn’t make my statements false, or cast doubt on our descriptions of the event.
What would cast doubt is if my description of the events are way different than what others describe. If I say events went a, b, c but other writers have different orders, then you could point to error somewhere.
All accounts that agree on what they describe, but that they may not describe things with all the same particulars (ie some omit certain things because of one reason or another) just shows accounts from different people of the same event do agree. You can’t say they’re false because they aren’t exact duplicates of their accounts.
Why have four gospels if they are all identical? You never in real life get two witnesses to anything giving an identical account of an event. If anything this would prove the genuineness of the accounts.
The other night Bill O’Reilly said something about the Bible being allegorical but he didn’t mention any specifics. I have been taught the Bible is literal except where explicitly otherwise, such as the parables of Jesus. Can you give me an example or two? Thanks.