Summations Only

Jar,
I don't have any idea on what percent of Christians would be aware of those issues. Or just call them a non- issue ( Like Faith) and claim otherwise.
As a guess, I say 99%.
That is 99% are not aware of the fourberie mentioned here. There is far more than that as well. That's no more than a snippet of fourberie.
You are an exception. One that I have never seen before actually.But take this as an example. The normal good Catholic kid goes to Catholic school becomes an altar boy, ( avoids some issues there;-)))) . Then later he finds out with extreme reluctance. That the priests have been telling a load of Bullshit. The Gospel of Mark is not the Gospel as written by Saint Mark. There is no indication in any way it's anybody but Mark, it's not though. Nobody says, oh by the way the other boys wrote down Gospel stuff later than the unknown Mark. We don't indicate that either. We don't know who they are either but not Saint Matthew or Saint Luke. Somebody else and they actually copied unknown Mark.. a lot. And this unknown Mark, he screws the geography up so bad, we know he wasn't even familiar with the area. And that's the guy they copy.
This stuff is unheard of. Faith still won't believe it. It seems the more we learn, the more bullshit uncovered.That is not a sincere way to accept god or religion. It's a fourberie way of insincerity because it can't stand on it's own holy book.
Myself, the problems are so deep and so prevalent and so far back in virtually any area that can be looked at... I think it's fair to say that it is full of bullshit from the bottom to top and back again.
There are too many problems and it's a repeated pattern.
That is not a behavior consistent with any form of truth I am aware of.
And that isn't even looking at the logical side of the equation.

Like I have been saying, it is a matter of education.

Yes. That's what a hypothesis is. An explanation that matches some evidence. Apparently nobody is calling the documentary hypothesis a theory or anything like a theory.Similarly, panspermia is a hypothesis about the origin of life. Presumably it explains some facts or evidence about life. So what should we make regarding statements like, 'the evidence shows that life on earth originated off planet'. Do you think a hypothesis is sufficient support for such a statement?

I think a hypothesis is exactly as you say.
I'm not saying I accept the documentary hypothesis. I just mean to state it is attempting an explanation based on information, outside of the bible and within the bible. It's "attempting" explanation using some evidence, which itself is subject to scrutiny. I am not saying I agree or don't agree but it's at least attempting to "find some truth" as opposed to stating a purported truth and story is over. So it's heading in the right direction in terms of research and evidence and support for a position, whether it ends up as accurate.... I don't know. Maybe it's part of solving a puzzle but not the solution to the puzzle.
I do know if we accepted the biblical traditions via the grandfather clause... there are many things we would be wrong on. We can't always thank the sincere Christians for pointing those discrepancies out either.
So researching and hypothesis' are good.
In my opinion.

Again this is a subject that requires an immense amount of study to answer all the allegations against the integrity of the Bible as traditionally understood. There are Christians who could answer you, but they aren't here. I'm hoping NoNukes can go some way in that direction at least.I did find this page that deals with some of the allegations made here against Mark, his identity and his supposed lack of knowledge of Palestinian geography. and ABE: This site also has a page discussing the basis for believing in the Bible as the word of God.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

With regards to the case against Mark, I'm not personally aware of the reasons why some people are convinced that Mark did not write the Gospel. But I'm also not inclined to pursue it here given the teeth pulling that was necessary to get people to back up their claims about the last time I pushed.Unless I see something that rises above the level of a few scholars' hypotheses, I'm not going to bother. Yes, the evidence for the proposition that a disciple of Jesus wrote the gospel according to Mark is pretty shakey. But the evidence against is pretty porous as well.

quote:

---

I did find this page that deals with some of the allegations made here against Mark, his identity and his supposed lack of knowledge of Palestinian geography.

---

Let us note that the page tells us that the "Mark" who wrote the Gospel was a disciple of Peter, and that the order of events is incorrect, at least to the point where Papias thought it worth mentioning. (see the text for the footnotes)

quote:

---

ABE: This site also has a page discussing the basis for believing in the Bible as the word of God.

---

"The Word of God" has many meanings. The idea that God wrote it is not the only one, nor one that can be supported from the text.The main reason that the article gives seems to me to amount to pride, and even it's use of the Bible is questionable.

There's lots written against this documentary hypothesis nonsense, also known as "the higher criticism," to be found online.

The problem with say Mark are vast. The problems displaying it here, are that it requires a lot of reading, from a lot of sources in order to avoid the routine bias seen in anything religious. The norm for me reading religious stuff is the lack of integrity. I think it's disgusting personally. A person simply never finds this type of disingenuous behaviour in science. It turns my stomach frankly.
Here is an example. The quoted statement.. is based on tradition and Papias and Eusebius for sources. It can not get worse. Tradition means nothing and is almost always wrong. And Papias and Eusebius are liars. With an apologist doing the explaining. What a mess. It's a liar telling a story, using another liar for a source, to prove the lie they are purporting. The believers are willing to gag all the lies back willingly.
This is simply not found in science or indeed whenever we are discussing "normal" evidence. It's unique to religion. It's sad actually.If I get motivated to bang my head against wall, I'll consider posting something lest I get rightly accused of talking smack and showing nothing. The problem is it doesn't matter. If the vast reading required isn't done and reading is only done on bias Christian websites, where the Koolaid is ladled, it's useless.

You'd be wrong. In the Pentateuch sometimes the contexts are different, sometimes not. In the opening chapters of Genesis the style, viewpoint and vocabulary change nearly from sentence to sentence while the context remains unchanged. No one writes like that. That's what happens when two similar but not identical narratives are carefully merged.Concerning what you said about variations in my own writing, of course my vocabulary will change in threads here as one changes topic from geology to biology to cosmology and so forth, but not style or viewpoint. In my work I come across my own writing in an anonymous context (comments in programming code with many contributors) long after I've forgotten writing it (I worked at the same place for 23 years), and I can always recognize it. It doesn't vary much. I recently came across something I wrote forty years ago. It was just so me.You, too, have an easily recognizable writing style and viewpoint that doesn't vary much, as do many others here. It sometimes happens that I'm reading a message and thinking it's from one person when it's actually from another. It doesn't take long before I realize my mistake and think, "Wait a minute, this can't be from so-and-so," and it's because of writing style, viewpoint and vocabulary.--Percy

Even the article that Faith cites comes down against the hypothesis that the author of Mark was an eyewitness. When you dismiss the evidence you are really agreeing with those that say we don't know who wrote Mark. Which is hardly a good position to be in if you want to argue that Mark is an eyewitness account.

Be fair, Golflly. The argument might not be that good, but it isn't that bad, especially by Faith's standards. And remember that even Faith disagrees with it.

Also, even if Mark wrote it, who is this Mark? We have no biographical, or historical evidence of who he was. Why should we trust writings of someone, who for all intents and purposes is anonymous?

If you look back through the messages you'll see that the claims were not empty, that they were backed up, but Faith's reaction to them was so full of hostility that no one felt that elaborating on support for the claims was a worthwhile investment of time. You seemed, to me at least, to be trying to convince people to waste their time. It's not like we're not familiar with Faith's long history of utter and total disregard for the sincere and often intense effort that goes into messages to her. When interacting with Faith one must marshal one's time carefully, else one will find a carefully researched and composed essay met with silence or a one sentence dismissal. Now you sound like Faith, misleadingly minimizing the degree of support for what is a strongly majority view. Wikipedia on the Gospel of Mark: --Percy

Regardless of who actually wrote Mark originally the evidence that it was edited at least twice by at least two other people is pretty conclusive. There is evidence that both the beginning and the ending at a very minimum were edited with additional material added at a later date.That does not change the validity of Mark any more than revisions to any book but it certainly is very strong evidence that even the New Testament is not and was never inerrant or even considered the inerrant word of God.