Half banana16 hours ago
TTWSF, The Bible is an old collection of texts. First collated in the fourth century CE and therefore it might be said to be “historical” in its appearance in time. This does not make it historical in the sense that it is a ”history”, far from it! It is a collection of texts much doctored and edited to suit the propaganda of the users of the books even before their inclusion into the Bible by the Catholic Church. The source documents and stories for the Bible are mainly pagan and do not qualify to make a historian’s account of what is a proper historical record. This is because they are derivative and are not first-hand records by reliable witnesses.
Again, I respectfully disagree.
The 4th century confirmation of the books of the bible simply confirmed most of the books that were confirmed in the 1st and 2nd century. There is a copy of the gospel of John [fragments of a copy anyway] that dates with in 40 years of John's death. Also there were guidelines that were followed while compiling the bible. One was that the book had to be ancient. It had to be something that could be traced back historically. That is why books like the gospel of Mary or the gospel of Peter, gospel of Judas, etc. These books were not old enough to be considered.
Just saying.........that I believe the bible is the word of God