This Is A Fair Question

[drfuzzy]

---

The problem with that kind of thinking is that it is clear that the bible has been edited and reedited so many times that we can get not one single iota of the voices of the various authors from any modern bible.  Compound this with the fact that, despite often taking famous christian names, every single author in the bible is anonymous, and what you're left with is that the only honest, rational and truthful conclusion is that the bible is a wholly invented tissue of lies from its first I to its last full stop.

---

---

---

The history of the Bible is not my area of expertise, but I would have to disagree. The Original Old Testament manuscripts were preserved to the letter by the Masoretes, with very few textual variants. Also, literary analysis and textual criticism of sets of documents such as the Pauline corpus show similar vocabulary, syntax, and theological consistency, while each biblical author takes a different approach to the same basic topics. We also have pretty solid evidence for the authorship of most of the biblical texts, especially the NT texts. The authorship of the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews is heavily disputed, but their theology is still consistent with that of the other authors. 

---

---

---

Research techniques? Well that's a new one.

If the four gospels are the inspired word of God then all four gospels are true.
If all four gospels are true then all four will be the same.
The four gospels are not the same.

Indeed, the gospel of John differs so much from the other three that it may not be obvious to a casual reader that he's talking about the same bloke. So what should a rational thinking person conclude from this? I'll give you a badly needed clue, it's all made up bollocks.

---

Your argument is invalid. If you and I both witnessed the same event such as a parade or concert and wrote about it, our accounts would differ quite a bit in terms of the details we include (or omit). Still, both accounts could be faithful, accurate renderings of the same event from different perspectives, and both could contain valuable information to a curious reader. The only difference is that God influenced and directed this process.

If you are studying the authorship of the Bible, then you are well-aware that the "gospels" are not eye-witness accounts.  

And if you claim that God influenced anything, you have to first prove that a deity exists.  I hold that no deity of any sort exists until one shows up in person and proves its own existence - no books, no preachers, no fantasy personal witness stories.  And until a deity proves its own existence, (and claims the Bible as it's handiwork - although why any advanced intelligence would claim such a hodge-podge of absurd tales would be astonishing) I consider the Bible to be fiction, like the Quran, the Bhagavad-Gita, the tales of the Greek and Roman and Egyptian gods, etc.