My pretense of "truth" is the result of my belief in the absence of lies
Jenyar, jcarl, I have to ask, what makes you believe that? Because the Bible has not been disproven? If that is your reasoning, why did the fact that it hasn't been proven fail to sway you?
What you said above, is an example of completely blind faith.
The "accuracy" you challenge are on your own terms.
Wrong. He hasn't asked--nor have any of us--for anything extreme or outlandish. Asking for evidence isn't outrageous.
By pointing out many inconsistencies, you think you have shown beyond "rational reason" that the the whole, and all of the accounts, are necessarily false or fabricated.
Again, not true. The inconsistancies should tell you that it's a bunch of crap, but to jump to that conclusion isn't right either.
Where accuracy is visible
And where the hell is it visible?? That's an outright lie, Jenyar.
Have I missed something, or have you failed to show why the gospels should indicate something other than what they propose to indicate?
If you'd check the thread "The Dinosaurs" you'd see a very strong case against the Bible, but since I don't expect you to go and "search for the truth" all the way over in another thread, I'll post a couple things in this one...
Abraham was from Summeria, which is why the Bible is just a different version of old Summerian texts. Stories which bear the characters with Biblical counterparts such as Adam and Eve, Moses; and the stories themselves are simply older versions of the Bible, save the "One God" idea. There's a flood story in Summeria, as there is one of Creation (Starring Adama...how origional does Adam seem now?)
And the fact that the OT books can be found in ancient Summerian and Akkadian writings should tell you that the God in the Bible isn't a Jewish God, nor a single God story. Abraham, the father of the Jewish religion and it's cults thereof, passed Summerian stories along as his own (Apparently) and turned the stories of many different gods into the story of a single God.
There are innumerable events whose records have not survived.
How do you know?
The absence of a birth narrative from Mark is exactly that: the absence of a birth narrative from Mark.
How do you know?
Likewise the presence of Herod's infanticide, the death narratives of Judas, etc.
Again, how the HELL do you know? This is my biggest beef with you people--the fact that you talk so presumptuously about the Bible and it's history! You just said, without question, that you know records didn't survive--as opposed to being cut by one of the hundreds of people who must have edited the Bible through the years (And we know it happened with King James) or just plain not finished by it's origional authors. No, you KNOW that the discrepencies are merely coincidence.
The strain happens when you suppose they all come from the same source, were witnessed by the same people, and reported to the same audience.
Bull. No one is supposing that on this thread. The oversimplification is on your side of the court, as you presume, with no evidence to back you--and a ton of evidence that says the Bible isn't an origional story--that the Bible is correct and accurate. You people claim to know the truth, and the Word of God is the end-all be-all, all the while you presume things about the stories themselves, all to fit your particular argument.
What about all of the predictions of Christ coming and what would happen to him? Do those mean anything at all to you?
No, young child, because you cannot use the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible. Dude, you're 15, you didn't reach these beliefs on your own; you were told that God existed and the Bible was accurate. You never studied, you know little about the origins of your own religion. You are a prime example of religious brainwashing. Eventually, you'll look at what the fuck you're fighting for and say "Jeez, this is stupid!" and finally get over your force-fed beliefs.
JD