This is simply wrong. The Bible is authoritative, but it is not the only proof for its claims. Archaeological evidence is but one of the means of testing many historical claims.
Me:
I'm not saying the Bible was written in a vacuum. Obviously, it was generated because of some kind of motivation, as evidenced by those fragments of proof in terms of what buildings, locations, rulers, etc. were extant, as well as the geneological chains it relates. But you ought to re-examine your concept of proof, as I did long ago. A mere collection of corroborations is not proof of its extraorinary claims. After all, one must believe its claims before accepting corroboration as proof.
Further, claiming that it has been heavily edited over the past 2000 years does not match the evidence given that we have at least fragments that are 1900 years old and complete copies (of books) from the 2nd century on.
Me:
I refer again to my remarks about corroboration, I also refer to the fact that I have a Parallel Version of the Bible, with four different versions of it on facing pages, as well as a copy of the New World Testament from the Jehovah's Witnesses. They claim theirs is the most authoritative version, being an attempt at a word-by-word transliteration. They, in fact, famously deny that J. was crucified on a "cross." They say the truth was it was a "tree." Now you cannot stand there on two feet and tell me that these differing versions are not "editions." <grin> There is great wisdom in it, and I often quote the KJV <ahem> version, but my standards of provenance are somewhat stricter than most peoples'.
The Bible is the most studied work of all time and the best documented work as well. No other historical work has even close to the fragmentary and extant copies still in existence as the Bible.
Me:
"Documentation" is not proof of its extraordinary extranormal claims. Wine into water? Feeding the multitudes? I have seen "explanations" of this in terms of the writers using analogies, metaphors, parables, or even "one of the mysteries of the faith."
I can see Lazarus coming out of some kind of deep coma or his heart being re-started or something. This would be seen by contemporaries as being raised from the dead. But a "miracle?" Hey, something like this could explain the resurrection, too. I suppose someone as strong as a carpenter could recover in the tomb, move the stones away and wander around in a daze for a period before being seen again by his Disciples. Ahhh, but that's pure conjecture.
You are free to disbelieve the claims, but you cannot make baseless claims about it being "heavily edited".
Me:
Ohhh, yes I can. "Baseless," indeed.
You'll have to forgive me in advance, but I think I am going to disengage from this discussion, at least for now. It is taking too much time, and I've dealt with this stuff in detail in my own mind and writings ages ago.
I will say that I am not an atheist, nor an aggressive agnostic. But my plaint and plea is for folks to (A) realistically asses the impact of formalized religion on their thinking, and (B) allow me to be free of (what I consider to be) the constraints and restraints of
formalized religion
and its proselytizing.
That's all I ask. Heck, the editing alone of this post took a half hour.
Now can we get back to a discussion of wiki's editing? :D
Terry
Edited later for typos.