the Bible contains known historical anomalies, inexplicably delayed reporting, probable acts of plagiarism, embarrassing scientific blunders, and unoriginal religious themes invoked many centuries before Christianity ever came into being.

Long, Jason (2005-01-19). Biblical Nonsense: A Review Of The Bible For Doubting Christians (p. 196). iUniverse. Kindle Edition.

All of the books, and the whole of each, which the Church receives as sacred and canonical were written down at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and in fact, so far from there being possibly any error present in divine inspiration, this latter of itself not only excludes but rejects it with the same necessity that God himself, who is the Supreme Truth, cannot be the author of any error whatsoever…For the Holy Spirit himself with supernatural power so stirred and moved them to write, and so assisted as they wrote, that they both conceived correctly in mind, and wished to write down faithfully, and expressed aptly with infallible truth, all and each of these things which he bades, otherwise he himself would not be the author of the entire scripture.1

Not only does II Chronicles contradict the information in II Kings, it even contradicts itself.  For the author mentioned that Ahaziah took over from his father, Jehoram, who had just passed away at the age of forty! (II Chronicles 21:20)  According to II Chronicles, Ahaziah was two years older than his own fath

Embedded within this method of “reasoning” is the belief (certitude) that the Bible is inerrant and the moment there are possible explanations for the various “difficulties”, the problem is considered solved! This is not how things work in reasoned discourse. Remember that it is “possible” that the sun may rise from the west tomorrow! To show why their explanation is more likely to be true, they have to provide evidence why it is to be preferred over other accounts.  Merely suggesting a possible explanation does not mean the problem is resolved.

The Gospel of John to Christians is the most important of all. Here is the only place Jesus Himself claims divinity. Here Jesus is a full-blown savior god in the way an educated Greek scholar could understand. Here was the platonic Logos (a form of it) acceptable to the Greek mind. The troubling part is this “John” was no simple fisherman from Galilee. Even the church admits his advanced age (90) and the late dates of his writings. (90+ CE) His audience was not Jews and makes the remark “the Jews” at least 64 times. (KJV) He also wrote of himself as the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” (21:20) In the other gospels, John is mentioned in passing and while mentioned only once as “a pillar” of the Church along with James and Peter in Paul’s Epistles (Galatians 2:9) in passing while John doesn’t mention Paul at all.

Conclusion In my opinion the writer is a Greek convert that hates Jews. This is based on the late date of writing; the heavy use of scholarly Greek, and the way the writer uses terms such as “the Jews” convinces me of this. He never met Jesus anymore than Paul did. While he is from Ephesus and the churches Paul founded, he never met Paul nor did Paul ever meet him. He is a virulent anti-Semite that hates Jews and John is the most anti-Semitic book in the New Testament. The book of John should never have been placed where it was between Luke and Acts (originally one work) but belongs at the end after Book of Revelation with I, II, and III John. There is also a Gnostic influence here as well.

.