How come biblical scholarship is so terrible? Why hasn’t a proper explanation been given on the Q source? How come there were even disputes at all over what was and wasn’t canon if the church line persevered? Is this why Catholics had to add a bunch of extra biblical explanations for the internal inconsistencies of the gospel?

A fairly significant percentage of people actually become irreligious after taking courses on religion and in some cases even in Seminary, so the only people who "make it" so-to-speak are also the biggest retard YEC schizo types.

>>17764709 (OP)
>Pic
That's an easy one. Ahaziah (the son of Athaliah, not the other one) had two separate reigns. His second reign was in Jerusalem and only lasted two years, but the first reign was over the northern kingdom. Thanks to the Bible, we know when both reigns started.

>Why hasn’t a proper explanation been given on the Q source?
Because it's made up
>How come there were even disputes at all over what was and wasn’t canon if the church line persevered?
There were disputes among people who weren't saved, I'm sure.

>Is this why Catholics had to add a bunch of extra biblical explanations for the internal inconsistencies of the gospel?
You think "the Q source" is an internal inconsistency, or is there something else?