One complete picture? No, not at all. The Bible is filled with contradictions and inaccuracies. And that conclusion is based on a lifetime of reading the Bible. Take the Easter story for instance (ironically, the original subject of this thread). The accounts in the four gospels are contradictory to the point that it is impossible to put together one single account of Jesus' last days on earth, crutifixion, and resurrection.
How is it that you cannot bring yourself to read the man's ideas in his own words and can only deal with bite-sized portions regurgitated by your theist brethren who take great delight in either misquoting those with whom they disagree or quoting them out of context? Is it perhaps a congenital disorder on your part, or is it a well-honed defense mechanism that prevents you from seeing anything objectively that potentially threatens your views?
I disagree, this is not at all correct. The four Gospels agree on all significant points, while still being four independent accounts, four different perspectives -- two of them individual and the other two composite perspectives. Any little differences (like was it the day before Passover that the Last Supper happened, or the distinction of "three days" vs "third day") can be easily explained if you consider that the two languages involved (Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek) had a very different way to account for time, etc etc. A great number of religious scholars have analyzed these texts over the past two millenia and agreed on this.
Except that you are living in a world where the product of science is ubiquitous. Did you know that the Arab world was at one time in the forefront of science and mathematics? If I am not mistaken, it was an Arab who had invented the Zero, which made calculation and mathematical manipulation possible. And it went from there. However, when religion overtook that part of the world in the form of Islam, the Arab world fell behind the scientific forefront, and look where it is today. It is amazing how progress can slow when people content themselves to attribute to God anything that they cannot readily and immediately understand. Whereas those who do not immediately attribute the unknown to the supernatural (God) tend to make forays into new territory of understanding and accomplishment.
Actually, the Babylonians discovered the zero (perhaps got it from India) and it subsequently appeared in the texts of some Greek philosophers (via Egypt) although not in a very prominent position. The Arabs used it well as they depended more on "advanced" math (eg, Algebra) to navigate the deserts, while the Greeks and Romans just checked with the nearest Eastern Mediterranean island to figure out where they were. And, the Babylonians, Hindus, Egyptians et al were VERY religious! I am not a great friend of Islam, but, religion has nothing to do with science, doesn't stop it or push it (eg, "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's" in the Gospel.) Unfortunately, when powerful dictators take over they use hatever they can get their hands on to align everyone under their control. In the Middle Ages that was religion, in the 20th century that was communism, fear and greed is always there to be used, etc etc.
This is so biased and wrong, it amazes me. How many scientists worked hard at curing diseases and inventing better ways to grow crops just because of their faith and reliance on God? We don't "attribute the unknown" to God, we feel that God underlies everything, known and unknown. In other words, His presence is everywhere we are active, for everything we do. I am a scientist and a businessman - not to mention husband and father - nothing contradictory there, my faith enables me to be the best I can be in all that I do, that's all.
I prefaced my comment with "If I am not mistaken." I guess I was mistaken. My apologies. However, I will stand by the remainder of my post.