Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[Cyberman]

If other, non-biblical sources had recorded these events, it would be reasonable to conclude that those events probably happened. All that "Word of God" stuff is still something you'd have to justify.

Unfortunately, you don't have any outside sources; all you have, the sole source for any of this stuff, is your book.

[Minimalist]

A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided by the historical-critical method. They come in with the expectation of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can pass
them along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their surprise they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were considered canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds on numerous points and contain nonhistorical material. It is hard to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New Testament contains historically unreliable information about the
life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.

-- Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted page 5-6

[discipulus]

Unfortunately you have four stories that don't actually match up in all the details.

You are right they don't all match up. Each writer recorded certain specific details of Jesus' life and each writer, though inspired, retained their own individual and unique style of writing. Each gospel writer was inspired to portray Jesus in a particular light. For example, Matthew's style was geared more towards a Jewish audience while John was writing of Jesus as the Logos, or The Word of God. John focuses on the divinity of Christ while Luke emphasizes His humanity.

When taken as a whole we have more of a complete picture than what we would have if we were to take them individually.

News reporters covering the 9/11 terrorist attack on the WTC, though reporting on one terrorist attack, each recorded different things depending on their vantage point. Taken together the accounts of the reporters provide us with a more complete picture of the attack.

The gospel accounts, though differing in certain respects, never contradict one another.

[Minimalist]

The gospel accounts, though differing in certain respects, never contradict one another.

You can't be serious.

http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm

[Jacob(smooth)]

Unfortunately you have four stories that don't actually match up in all the details.

You are right they don't all match up. Each writer recorded certain specific details of Jesus' life and each writer, though inspired, retained their own individual and unique style of writing. Each gospel writer was inspired to portray Jesus in a particular light. For example, Matthew's style was geared more towards a Jewish audience while John was writing of Jesus as the Logos, or The Word of God. John focuses on the divinity of Christ while Luke emphasizes His humanity.

When taken as a whole we have more of a complete picture than what we would have if we were to take them individually.

News reporters covering the 9/11 terrorist attack on the WTC, though reporting on one terrorist attack, each recorded different things depending on their vantage point. Taken together the accounts of the reporters provide us with a more complete picture of the attack.

The gospel accounts, though differing in certain respects, never contradict one another.

Except where they do and one has to take a stretch to make them fit.

For eg, you would think that if they were writing down the last words of the living god they would all hear the same words, instead of which we have 3 different last words. And wearing a robe which was purply red. Or red. Or purple.

Of course one can, at a stretch, find a way in which they are all true. But why is it reported that way? Like and John both have a phrase followed by "and then he gave up the ghost? Did he use both? If so, why does neither report record all of the words. It's not a long speech.

[Minimalist]

But why is it reported that way?

Apparently, 'god' is a little shaky on details!

[Chad32]

Unfortunately you have four stories that don't actually match up in all the details.

You are right they don't all match up. Each writer recorded certain specific details of Jesus' life and each writer, though inspired, retained their own individual and unique style of writing. Each gospel writer was inspired to portray Jesus in a particular light. For example, Matthew's style was geared more towards a Jewish audience while John was writing of Jesus as the Logos, or The Word of God. John focuses on the divinity of Christ while Luke emphasizes His humanity.

When taken as a whole we have more of a complete picture than what we would have if we were to take them individually.

News reporters covering the 9/11 terrorist attack on the WTC, though reporting on one terrorist attack, each recorded different things depending on their vantage point. Taken together the accounts of the reporters provide us with a more complete picture of the attack.

The gospel accounts, though differing in certain respects, never contradict one another.

Yes they contradict each other. That's what I meant about the accounts not matching up. It's not just telling the same story from different perspectives. It's telling stories with important details being different from each other.

[Mr. Moncrieff]

If you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin as both Matthew and Luke assert, then it must be admitted that Jesus himself has no connection to either geneology. That makes them rather a moot point since the whole point of these things is to show Jesus' descendancy from David. It's a contradiction in itself to say that Jesus was "born of a virgin" and then try to prove a Davidic lineage through Joseph. Luke and Matthew disagree on that very genealogy though.

Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born and the magi visit them in a house. Luke says they lived in Nazareth and were only in Bethlehem to register for a census.

Matthew says that Jesus' family fled to Egypt after Jesus was born and then moved to Nazareth only after they had returned from Egypt and an angel told them to move to Galilee.

Luke says nothing about Herod's "slaughter of the innocents" or a flight to Egypt. He explicitly states that Jesus went to Jerusalem to be circumcised eight days after he was born and then immediately returned to Nazareth.

Luke also says nothing about the magi, or about a star or about the house where the magi visited Jesus in Bethlehem.

These are completely different stories and it seems that neither author has any awareness of the other.

We could go on - the last words of Jesus, the last supper discussions, the death of Judas, the details of the resurrection, the account of Jesus' baptism, the beginning of his ministry...

[DeistPaladin]

The event was recorded by somebody. It was recorded by Matthew the gospel writer.

Matthew, or whoever wrote that Gospel, was clearly a liar.

[discipulus]

If other, non-biblical sources had recorded these events, it would be reasonable to conclude that those events probably happened. All that "Word of God" stuff is still something you'd have to justify.

Unfortunately, you don't have any outside sources; all you have, the sole source for any of this stuff, is your book.

So you're saying that if I have extra biblical sources that speak of various events of Jesus' life then you would find it reasonable to conclude that those various events probably happened?