Do the other books not also show thematic unity? Any idea how they fail there?
I am not really sure why a thematic unity is not an expected result for a collection of books and writings about a single topic that is pro that topic. Would you not be able to collate a compilation of writings on just about any subject and ensure thematic unity?
I think its reasonable to assume that whenever there were obvious flaws or conflicting views, the conflicts would have not been included in the compilation. This is not trying to find a conspiracy. Is it not unreasonable to expect a compilation of writings on say "The invention and development of the rifle" to have thematic unity? Or have I perhaps misunderstood the definition of the term?
The thematic unity of the Bible is remarkable in light of the nature of the Bible's formation. Of course, other religious texts show thematic unity, but none of them were written over 1500 years by people from such widely varying walks of life as those who wrote the Bible, and in three different languages, and on three different continents. The Bible was not written by an established priestly caste that one would expect to be carefully uniform in its religious teachings. There was no overarching monolithic human organization that maintained oversight of the writing of the Scriptures. Cupbearers, sheepherders, kings, lawyers, doctors and fishermen (to name just a few) all contributed to the writing of the Bible. As I said, one would, consequently, expect significant contradiction and non-uniformity in the general themes of Scripture as the writers of it changed, and their cultural and personal circumstances varied, and the language in which they wrote shifted. But this isn't what one encounters in the text of the Bible. Instead, there is amazing uniformity in the grand narrative of God's Word.
I can't really speak to your assumptions about redaction of the biblical text except to say that your assumption suggests an antagonistic stance toward the Bible. Why wouldn't you choose instead to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt in matters where you have no concrete reason to find fault? I think the fact that the Bible delivers its accounts "warts and all" counters the notion that there was editing of the Scriptures that went on. Abraham is shown to be something of a coward, Moses was a murderer, King David was an adulterer and murderer, the prophet Elijah is pictured despondent and afraid, the apostle Peter was a hot-head and a betrayer of Christ, Paul was a killer of Christians, and so on. These "warts" on the major figures of biblical history, are contrary to typical religious propaganda that polishes and glorifies its religious icons. Surely these ugly truths about these prominent figures of the Bible would have been edited out if there was some sort of editing that had gone on.
Does discovering ancient cities and human remains mentioned in the bible really give the stories much more credibility. Does the future discovery of a buried empire state building, really prove that king kong existed?
But your analogy isn't very apt. The story of King Kong is not offered as a fact of history; the stories of the Bible are. Names, dates, events are all recorded in Scripture with the intent of certifying the events that are related.
And when the accuracy of what the Bible reports is tested, it has been found again and again to be very high. This, I think, lends significant credence to the view that the stories of the Bible are not merely mythology. Other religious texts, in contrast, make little or no effort at all to be historically accurate; fiction is the norm for these other texts. And this sets them distinctly apart from the Bible.
I therefore accept for now that you find the prophecies to be impressive. I take a different view. I find them horribly vague - if they can even be believed in the first place. Lets agree to have different views on this one for now
Yes, we will have to disagree if you think the prophecies are "horribly vague" and that they have been fulfilled in an equally vague way.
Does that not give the Jewish, Hindu and Budhist faiths a "win" in this category then? Have they not maintained stories and writings for even longer?
I don't often see Christian using this as a pro in their discussions, so interesting that you see it that way. I suspect that there are many more scientifically dubious claims in the bible. I am surprised though that you see this as a point that makes the bible stand out against other religious texts.
Well, what you see as "scientifically dubious" is a matter, not of science, but of
philosophy. Who says that the claims of Scripture are scientifically dubious? Scientists who have ruled out
a priori that the supernatural does not exist (or those with a philosophical commitment to a naturalistic/materialistic view of the universe). And when such scientists come to the interpretation of the facts of science, they naturally interpret in accordance with their philosophical presuppositions. I don't see any of the antagonism between science and the claims of Scripture that you or many naturalistic scientists do. But that is because my presuppositions differ fundamentally from yours and theirs (by including the supernatural). But, again, this is a matter of
philosophy, not science.
Do members of other faiths also not have similar personal experiences?
Did the bible not "borrow" much of the teachings from Judaism?
Are you suggesting that the experiences of those of other faiths somehow nullify my own experiences?
Are you not aware that the New Testament is considered by Christians as the fulfillment of the Old Testament? Jesus was a Jew and his life and teaching the fulfillment of the Old Testament Scriptures. He did not borrow from Judaism so much as he was the culmination of its beliefs, practices and prophecies.
None of the points I raised serve on their own (except, perhaps, for prophecy) as a knock-out punch in favor of the Christian faith or the divine origin of the Bible. Instead they create a strong
cumulative argument or justification for the Christian's belief in the divine origin of Scripture.
Selah.
