Sigh. Well man, it is a view of recent Christian histiography that the early church was simply the victor in a struggle between competing factions. The orthodox view of the first few centuries of Christianity, is that the Christianity of the mediterrenean world was orthodox. If that's paranoid ramblings to you, so what. I could say the same thing about what you are saying. It's pointless. So, if it's OK with you. let's just drop this point.
Am I the one claiming something? I asked you for evidence is there none?, i guess asking people to back up claims is pointless?
You only need internal evidence to prove the genre of a given document. That internal evidence is present in Genesis to Nehemiah, and even Matthew to Acts. They define their own genre, not us. Your opinion on their genre is as worthless as mine is. They are historical narratives, that is their self-defined genre, irregardless of whether their contents are primarily true history or not. Go take an Exegesis class at a Bible college. They will teach you this. Each book itself defines its own genre.
you know nothing about verifying history then, you use other texts to verify texts, you don't use whats in them as verification, you use whats in the text to define what the text might be dated to and thats not always useful even, as i said it is not history it is a story about god creating man and stories to explain things within this world, you think they are history but its all belief
Its not like conceding that their genre is historical, somehow makes them true or that you have to believe they are true. Have you ever actually read the Bible? I don't get the controversy on this one
I've read the kjv, the niv, and some others but whether you think it is in the genre of history, the point is how do you know its historical? i have a guess.. people told you it, just like everyone else, thats the only way you could believe this
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 01-02-2006 03:26 AM
™ Version 4.2