I understand there are tons of texts and authors over time, but i should have been more clear. In the old testament alone there are about 30 different authors, now each one was in most cases not exposed to the others works, they individually wrote about The God of Israel and how He was working in the lives of people.
Are you suggesting there is no oral tradition in the early days of Christianity?
As for that, perhaps you have forgotten these?
<blockquote>It is always the winners who write the history of a conflict, and for 2,000 years orthodox opinion on what were called heretics has dominated traditional accounts of the origin of Christianity. Until recently widely held opinion among Christians considered the early church a charismatic, united body of people, inspired by the life of Jesus and all believing in the same basic teachings. The heretics came later, so it was thought, when the Apostles and the generation of those who knew them had passed away.
This illusion was shattered by two of the most important archaeological discoveries of this century: the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the Qumran caves near the Dead Sea in 1947; and the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in 1945 in Egypt. While the Dead Sea Scrolls raised doubts about the historicity -- even the identity -- of Jesus, the Nag Hammadi texts opened an entirely new vista on early Christian communities.
It took some 30 years before the Nag Hammadi texts were translated and published, due to delay caused by endless intrigues and manipulations which did little credit to the scholars involved. It is also well known that access to the texts was deliberately suppressed because -- as was generally suspected -- orthodox Christians feared the revelation of facts which might upset the faith of believers. As it turned out, their fears were well-founded. Meanwhile the literary floodgates on this subject have been opened, with thousands of publications on the Nag Hammadi Library. And the arguments among historians and theologians show no signs of abating. </blockquote>
It seems that all of your early authors were by no means in agreement, otherwise there would be NO gnostic texts, eh?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Despite your assertion of many authors and similar views, I beg to differ yet again.
The version of the bible that you are referring to, was not orignally written in that way. Those texts were selected by a panel of folks, and VOTED on as canonical or not. That doesn't leave much room for dissenting opinion, does it?
As I said, this does NOT add credence to your argument FOR the presence of God.
What you are reffering to is people who have continued writing based on other written work.
Much like the bible, or have you forgotten that NONE of it was written at the time of the event? What's your point with this line of reasoning? There is no validity to it for the ascertion of the presence of God.
<blockquote>The process of canonization was complex and lengthy. It was characterized by a compilation of books that early Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching, relevant to the historical situations in which they lived, and consonant with the Hebrew Testament (early Christian communities were primarily Jewish). In this way, the books considered authoritative revelation of the New Covenant were not hammered out in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but in the secret worship sessions of lower-class peasant Christians. While an episcopal hierarchy did develop and finally solidify the canon, this was a relatively late development.
In the first three centuries of the Christian Church, there was no New Testament canon that was universally recognized. Nevertheless, by the 2nd century there was a common collection of letters and gospels that a majority of church leaders considered authoritative. These contained the four gospels and many of the letters of Paul. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (all 2nd century), held these to be on par with the Hebrew Scriptures as being divinely inspired. Other books were held in high esteem, but were gradually relegated to the status of New Testament apocrypha.</blockquote>
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._of_composition
to make the question more clear because you said there were other religions that compared to the bible in author and writing,
And I have. There are lots out there. I gave you examples, and you refuse to acknowledge their similarities because I think you want your religion to be special. You want it to be right. You want it to be the only one.
Unrealistic, unfortunate, and unyielding as that is, you will have to face the facts. Other religions have long historic traditions of multiple authors. Islam for instance... In fact, Islam and Judaism both use pieces of the Christian text, and NEITHER of them are in fact, CHRISTIAN.
Give me examples of other religions that have authors not following previous work and span over thousands of years that coincide with each other about the same god.
Judaism, Islam, Gnosticism, and for the record, the NEW testament built on the OLD testament...
And let's put this puppy to bed one last time, okay???
<blockquote>The Letter of James is notable for its extensive use of scriptural references. At one time the letter's heavy reliance on Old Testament quotes seemed to imply the author was more Hebrew than Christian. Some scholars argued that James was not originally a Christian text. The letter may be commentary on Leviticus 19 or Psalm 12. Today we recognize that the letter uses significant texts from the Gospels and has a similar style and message as Paul's letters. Similarities with Matthew and Luke, without using the exact language of either Gospel, are sometimes used to argue that the writer James must have been an eye witness of Jesus preaching. James probably would have attempted to use the language of the Gospels if he had not heard the Sermon on the Mount or Sermon on the Plain himself.</blockquote>
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
<blockquote>5. One area of evident overlap between the two disciplines is OT citations present in the NT. It has long been noted that NT writers tend to quote the OT from the LXX rather than the MT. For this reason, readings that reflect a text different from that of the LXX are generally preferred to those that mirror the LXX (Aland and Aland 1989:290).1 One often unnoticed prerequisite of this procedure is to establish the text of the LXX in the passage in question. It is especially dangerous to assume that the text of the Cambridge edition is the LXX, since it reflects the text of a single ms (Vaticanus in most instances); the Göttingen edition, or even Rahlfs' manual edition, are preferable to the Cambridge edition if the reading of the text (as opposed to one of the readings of the apparatus) is to be accepted. In contrast to NT textual critics' use of OT quotations, OT textual critics rarely avail themselves of this data, despite the fact that these quotations are valuable, and ancient, witnesses to both the LXX and pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. Methodologically, the use of these passages by OT textual critics involves a detailed investigation of the NT context, a determination of whether the citation is intended to be a direct quotation, and an assessment of the reliability of NT author's memory or source. Both NT and OT textual critics could make greater and more effective use of the OT quotations found in the NT.</blockquote>
Please note the second bold entry there. Clearly it states that the authors of the OT AND the NT had access to the SAME information.
The authors of the NT often quoted the OT. Even Jesus did so. Get over it, let it go, and sit down and let the grown ups talk, huh?
You forgot to mention that last part of your educational website that says
"Years later, another archaeologist named Bryant Wood would come up with another conclusion. In 1990 he published a reevaluation of Kenyan's work, challenging her assertion that the city was destroyed before the 15th century BC. He claims that an abundance of pottery located at the site coincides with other local pottery common to the time of 1400BC and points out that Garstang's account does seem to describe it. Also, carbon-14 testing of a sample of charcoal from the site indicated a date of 1410 BC. The radiocarbon date seems to validate Garstang's earlier claim that the city was destroyed around 1400 BC. Whether of not Joshua actually destroyed it will probably remain a mystery. All we know for sure is that the new work contributed by Wood neither confirms nor denies the possibility."
I mean theres this city everythings burned up, the walls fell, your site explains the bible could possibly be true. maybe because it is, i mean 48% of the old testament is history alone. If it was any other history book you would embrace it.
I didn't forget to mention it, I only used what was relevant to my argument, and as it was the 4th or 5th article I read, I didn't get that far into it. Most of them read the same anyway. Upon further searching, this time using Wood and not Kenyan, I found this:
<blockquote>Wood makes a strong case for the accuracy of the Biblical narrative of the destruction of Jericho, but ultimately it only tells us that the events recorded in the Book of Joshua do not disagree with the archaeological record. As Time magazine noted, "Other experts find little fault with Wood's archaeology, but they are more skeptical about his linking of the evidence with Biblical events". Most scholars reject the historicity of Joshua in favor of belief in peaceful conquest. The prevailing belief in academia is that the Israelites came in far later than 1400 B.C., perhaps by two centuries, and they came "not as military conquerors bust as a wave of immigrants" (Lemonick).
Wood's use of Kenyon's observations and data to disprove Kenyon's conclusions shows us how important good methods are in archaeological field work. She did not go out and prove a hypothesis destroying the very evidence in the process, as one could argue earlier archaeologists had done. Instead she recorded the data which she had collected precisely, allowing those that come after her to test her hypotheses and inferences. In this case, we can see that in the future archaeologists will be able to employ new theoretical and practical insights to examine the evidence. This helps to turn archaeology into a real science, in which theories and hypotheses can actually be verified by repeated testing. </blockquote>
As with most things, the issue is NOT black or white. There is still controversy, but bottom line, the data does not support the biblical version to any great degree...
But because it goes against your faith you reject it.
Everybody gets one. You just used it. DO NOT put words in my mouth. I believe in God. Surprise!
What I don't believe in is your view that God littered the world with little "clues" that He allows a certain people to have that "prove" his existance... I repeat, there is NO proof.
For the record, I am a Deist, but ODN doesn't have a symbol for that, thus the other category I am relegated to...
i mean this evidence is tied up to the biblical account, of course they say well this is what happened because people deny God even when the evidence of a city is right there.
Yes, there is evidence for a city. Evidence for God remains scarce as hen's teeth.
i'll be the first to admit i dont have all the answers,
And if you would stop there, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What I am trying to show is that you DON'T have all the answers. Irony rears its ugly, ugly head once more...
but i put my faith in this(which by the way the bible never tells to trust in blindly, God says check it out, taste and see that the Lord is good) than in two people who decided they would come up with an alternative, the bible is a reality and we dont have to be able to detect something with our five senses to know something is true or real either.
"Seek and ye shall find." Unfortunately, if you close your eyes, what you are searching for will never be found. Understand the bible is NOT meant to be a history book, a science book, or a math book. It is a story of faith. It is written as parable, mystery, poetry, and prose... It is not meant to be 100% literal in all respects. Stop trying to force an unyielding world into YOUR version of reality... It won't fit.
As for the 5 senses, how else do you sense things? I eagerly await your answer on this one. In fact, I'll add it to my list of questions you haven't answered yet.
But this is what im asking in this post, do I need proof of God for Him to be real or fit into reality?
Obviously you don't, or you wouldn't ask. :evil:
Seriously though, you don't need the proof, but others do. As I said in the beginning, reality is brought about through perception. Ignore the truck all you want, but don't be surprised when it hits you...
let me ask you one question, well actually i think its been a couple questions but anyway, Do you love? wether its your family, friends, me:D j/k. Can you give me any evidence that that is real or reality? OR have you ever been angry? at me :D j/k can you offer me proof? God says we are made in the likeness of Him, we can get angry and so can God, we love and God does also, we get jealous and so on, now you cannot give me or provide me with any evidence of these but you know its reality right? You cannot offer me any proof of these yet you know they are real, that they are a reality.
Sure I can. I can show you cat scans/MRIs of brain changes during periods of emotional intensity. I can show you chemical compostions of same. We can observe behavior and derive clues to someone's mood. (IF the are laughing they are happy, if crying sad, and so on. Over time we can tell the difference in happy laughing and that thing you do when you are exhausted and emotionally fragile. For the sake of argument, let's use the scienctific method, ok?)
How is that for evidence?
Now that being said. I have once again given and you have not.
Where is YOUR evidence???
I await pictures of burned mountains, chariot wheels, and so on. This was YOUR entry to this debate. Show me the evidence...