Oh do please keep going. Show an example of how "explaining water" to two different groups can present inconsistencies.<quoted text>
It is most definitely a good argument for the authenticity of the content. Each gospel is consistent for each writer and the intended audience. It is not manipulation of the same story, its highlighting the aspects of the same story that would make the most sense to the intended readers readers.
For example: If you were a kinder-gardener I would explain that water is wet, clear, and you need to drink it to stay alive. If you were studying chemistry in college I would most definitely fail to mention you need to drink water to survive, that much would already be known, and I wouldn't tell you that it is clear or wet feeling. I would tell you that it is made of hydrogen and oxygen and talk about how water is formed by the combination of the two.
Reconciling those two explanations side by side might seem to present inconsistencies, when both explanations are explaining the same thing. The main difference between the explanations is the intended audience and as a result, the content differs.
Simply because the explanations in my example or in the Bible are different does not mean that water, or God do not exist.
I think you're helping, or not helping, the Biblical authority cause depending on which "group" you're speaking to;)