urge to pray - advice/help

[Undeceived]

As for the New Testament, this has been debunked.

‘Debunked’? Last I read, debunked meant one actually has evidence against the claims. There is none. In all the historical writings around the time of Christ, no contradictions have been found. Not only that, but a high percentage of the people in the Bible have been confirmed elsewhere. Here are just a couple archaeological finds: http://www.facingthechallenge.org/arch2.php Web search "archaeological evidence for the bible" for more.

You’d expect a fabricated document to weaken over time, but that is not true with the Bible. Every year archeologists and historians uncover more to back up Biblical records. We have no more contradictory evidence now than we had fifty years ago—that is to say, none. One might suppose the Bible is made up because they believe miraculous events cannot happen, but opinions do not debunk.

The authors probably were not the disciples that Jesus supposedly had.

What evidence do you have to back this up? All the gospels were written during the time the disciples were still alive, or should have been alive. Are you suggesting someone stole their identities? Many of the epistles confirm other writers and disciples as well. Paul mentioned Peter and Peter mentioned Paul, each recommending the other. Another good source:

http://carm.org/when-were-gospels-written-and-whom

The gospels have also been edited over the centuries.

Not true. We have portions of each all dated in the 1st century, and early church leaders quoting them as early as 40AD, meaning they must have been in circulation before that. They all match word for word, except for when meanings of words changed, which is about .01%.

There is little evidence to suggest that Jesus ever existed.

This link [http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php] lists a couple documents that mention Jesus. Remember, science is about acknowledging positive evidence, not holding out in hopes of it being disproved. Jesus has more mentions of his existence than any other non-Roman in his time period. You would not accuse any other person so often referenced as not existing!
Most secular historians agree Jesus lived and was known as a polarizing figure, whether he actually is divine or not.

Also examine the motives. There was no power or wealth to be gained from fabricating a religion in tension with Judaism. All but one disciple became a martyr. And how can one explain the explosion of converts shortly after Jesus’ life? What moved his followers from mourning to boldly proclaiming him God? There wasn’t enough time to develop a convincing myth. Compare the Bible to other ancient documents. The earliest histories of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than four hundred years after his death. Yet they are still considered to be generally trustworthy, as are all of Plato's works. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find any originals of historical documents. The fact that we have physical examples of extended Gospel quotes as early as the 40s AD is remarkable. Other examples, first date is time written and second is earliest copy:

Herodotus (History) 480 - 425 BC 900 AD
Thucydides (History) 460 - 400 BC 900 AD
Aristotle (Philosopher) 384 - 322 BC 1,100 AD
Caesar (History) 100 - 44 BC 900 AD
Pliny (History) 61 - 113 AD 850 AD
Suetonius (Roman History) 70 - 140 AD 950 AD
Tacitus (Greek History) 100 AD 1,100 AD

Paul also includes creeds in his writings. In 1 Corinthians 15 he describes the beliefs he received upon his conversion. If the crucifixion is 30 A.D., then his conversion would be 32 A.D. and his first official meeting with the Apostles in Jerusalem would be 35 A.D.—far too soon for any legendary additions. “A.N. Sherwin-White of Oxford did a study of the rate at which legend accrued in the ancient world and concluded that not even two full generations was enough time for legend to develop and to wipe out a solid core of historical truth” (http://www.millennialstar.org/the-case-f...-scripture).

As for the "creation" of the earth it is more logical and reasonable to discover it's history through a provable, replicatable and peer reviewed approach -aspects of the scientific method.

I'll let J.P. Moreland explain it for me:
"Intelligent design theory really is science because (1) it generates positive and negative test results; (2) it actually explains facts in scientifically standard ways; (3) it can be confirmed by the facts; and (4) it solves internal conceptual problems that evolution doesn’t solve. These are four things that a scientific theory ought to do, and ID does all four. Thus, ID exhibits what a scientific theory ought to exhibit and should be counted as scientific theory and not simply a religious belief."