Well, if comparisons between Bible translations scare you, try a synoptic (see-together) version (I am sure they exist for your preciousss Queen James Bible), like we used in RE. In those, the synoptic Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke are printed next to each other, verse by verse (with John being kept in one piece since he lacks the close correspondence as it exists between the synoptic gospels).
If you do, you might notice a few things:
1. Luke and Matthew, who wrote independently in approximately the same time period, drew from Mark, a shared source (a lost collection of sayings known as "source Q), as well as content exclusive to each.
2. That Luke and Matthew follow different agendas - Luke was focussed on pagans (trying to give Jesus more of a historical context) and emphasises the social message; Matthew on the other hand targeted Jewish laypeople, thus often name-dropping the Bible and bashing the Jewish establishment (making him a favourite of antisemites throughout the ages), and was more apocalyptic. John, finally, wrote more from a mystical-gnostic perspective.
3. The Christmas stories of Luke and of Matthew are completely different. Perhaps tellingly, John, who had access to all synoptic gospels, did not combine these into the patchwork form we are familiar with, rather, he starts with some mystical monologue before skipping to John the Baptist (where Mark starts the narrative). The stories also demonstrate the different foci of the two authors: In Luke, it is shephards (a poor and marginalised group) who are the first to be informed of the birth of the Messiah. In Matthew, Jesus is visited by three Magi (Persian priests -> "even pagans recognise Jesus!"), Herod massacres infant boys (defaming the Jewish establishment), so the family must flee to Egypt (Biblical irony!).
4. There are many more inconsistencies that clearly show that the Bible cannot be literally true right down to the smallest detail - and, at least in my opinion, this strongly implies that those who compiled the New Testament did not intend it to be read that way.
"All together now congregation, let's sing... “Da da 'da da danta danta da da.” Again, “Da da 'da da danta danta da da.” Let's sing like a church who loves the new Bibles... “Da da 'da da danta danta da da!”"
???
David J. Stewart is utterly unhinged, and very obviously needs to committed to an insane asylum. There is absolutely no filter to his output - he rambles as enthusiastically about any random stray thought as about his conspiracy theories, his his transparently disguised, utterly disturbed sexual fantasies, his monstrous misogyny or his nakedly self-serving "theology". This, more than any of these individual areas, is the aspect of DJS that disturbs me the most.
