I really did not know where to post this so I chose here.

Bible: The Gap Theory.

I would like to add my own theory on to this interesting theory.


Gen 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Gen 1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The Word of God appears to be telling the reader there was a previous populated world on the face of this old Earth before God formed the present world of modern Man. This invalidates the Doctrine of Young Earth Creationism.

The Bible itself provides insight into a great mystery in Earth's natural history, at what is known as the Pleistocene - Holocene boundary. Science remains at a loss to definitively explain the Ice Age and the anomaly of the mysterious mega fauna extinctions across the face of the Earth about 12,000 to 10,000 Radio Carbon years ago. Geologic evidence from that period indicates extraordinary global massive volcanism, gigantic tidal waves, seismic activity on a vast scale, and extreme climate swings on the Earth over a geologically brief period of time. It is no coincidence that the Bible at Genesis 1:2 describes the Earth as flooded, desolate, and in darkness in the timeframe closely corresponding to these catastrophic events in the Earth's natural history. Clearly, these two mysteries are linked.

What I would like to add is, what if a divine extraterrestrial being did in fact help get this planet back in working order?
Possibly a being(s) not of this planet far beyond our intelligence, had something to do with this.

I know this seems far-fetched, but, atleast it doesn't mean that a divine creator was just made up, it just means
that a highly intelligent being helped helped get our planet back in working order.


Any thoughts?



Regards,
Tom

From which point can you derive this statement ? Where is any population, past/present/future mentioned in either quote ?

The most common variety of "gap theory" assumes that a chronological gap occurs between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, during which vast spans of geologic time are presumed to have elapsed. It is thus postulated that the Earth was initially created in the distant past, and that all geologic events pointing to an old Earth transpired before some event that reduced the Earth to a state of formlessness or chaos as described in Genesis 1:2. This interpretation views Genesis 1:1-2 as best translated thus:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
--gap occurs here--
Now the earth became formless and void (or waste and ruin)..."
One suggested explanation for the event that throws the Earth into chaos is the fall of Lucifer (Satan). (Revelation 12:7-12, Isaiah 14:12, Ezekiel 28, Luke 10:18)

Those who hold this viewpoint on when the gap occurred point out that the "clock" on the six days of Genesis 1 may not have started "ticking" until the emergence of light in Genesis 1:3 as that verse indicates that this was the evening and morning that make the first day of Genesis, and light had to be present to initiate an evening.

The viewpoint that a gap took place between verses 1 and 2 implies that the events during the six days of Genesis 1 were an act of re-creation (restoration of the Earth) rather than initial creation.

I could be wrong in saying that God might be an extraterrestrial designer. It's just a theory.

The Genesis story could also be applied to Expanding Earth Theory as well. Starting with a smaller earth and the same volume of water, the earth would then be completely covered in deluge.

Then as the earth expands the water thins to cover less land as the land presses up from beneath.

Then the skies clear as the humidity drops and cloud cover recedes.

Plant life

Animal life

Mankind etc

Just a thought...the Genesis story could easily be applied to any series of theories, and history lines. If anything it is more of a generalization of applicable natural patterns.

It does not say anywhere in those texts that god created the whole universe no matter what way you look at it.

Job 38:4,7

sons of God shouted for joy at the creation of the earth'

Psalm 104:30 "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth"

www.pcog.org/

they have a free book; Mystery of the Ages, it has a lot in it on this subject

The bible and all the religions were created by those extrateresstrial inteligences to contorl people and keep them fighting,
Look into "Planet X", all those intelligences "that are now running this wordl from behind the scenes" are spreading disinformation about the return of Planet X, saying that it's coming to kill us.

From a religous stand-point, the aspect of a reconstruction during the 'gap' can be put down as it would have to allow for death, disease and suffering before 'Adam' comitted sin, which is entirely against the Bible's 'teachings'.

I'm confused as to why one would insert a "gap" into these two verses. I mean, isn't just as plausible for me to say that in between those two verses my purple unicorn flew the universe in serch of Fruitloops for 6 billion years?

Also, there are no verses in the Hebrew Scriptures....

Maybe we should go back to the source of Genesis: The other earlier Babylonian mythologies and Sumerian texts: Gilgamesh et al. The Hebrews seemed to borrow from earlier traditions. In fact, there are other esoteric Hebrew doctrines regarding Lilith as being the first god-woman, from whom the first man was fashioned. We need to take all of this into the context of Hebrew writers some 2500 - 3000 years ago. They didn't have the Hubble telescope, microscopes, or archeological science at the time...

And above all else, we should try not to confuse "religion" and religious doctrine with faith in the human spirit and consciousness (unquestionably divine as it erupted from the Cosmos - the Universe itself).

Indeed. And on top of that, it's difficult to take the Genesis narrative as a literal account. As the Jews look at it, it is highly symbolic. For instance "Adam and Eve". The Hebrew statement " והאדם ידע את־חוה אשׁתו" Is translated as "and then mankind knew life", not "and then Adam knew his wife Eve". By the original Hebrew, it does not contradict science at all. It just says "mankind knew life". It doesn't say how or when.

Also interesting to note. As Origin points out, the Biblical acount of creation "days", could not have been literal days. As days are measurements based off of the sun, moon, and stars. And if these were not yet 'created' yet, how could days be counted?

Right on!

How about this one:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

The Hebrews are alluding to the precession (wobble) of the earth's rotation and the apparent rotation of the zodiac signs, seasons of the cosmos... On the vernal equinox, the sun cuts a "cross" through the zodiac. Age of Taurus, Age of Aries, Age of Pisces (xristian times starting about 2000 years ago), and now we are on the verge of the Age of Aquarius. The Hebrew authors had enough knowledge of Astronomy/Astrology to even recognize earth's precession...

The first thing to come in to my head after reading this is why?. Why would a incredibly (by our standards) advanced life form care about this planet and us? In the grand scheme of things we really are a tiny tiny blip on the radar of space.

To this question I can think of a few answers all kind of tying together. One is that this incredibly advanced life form has evolved in a way that drives it to save whatever peril facing sufficiently advanced creatures they stumble across. Now this advanced life form would have to only care about sufficiently creatures otherwise why bother fixing the planet? Once life has formed on a planet it would be darn difficult to exterminate it all. Given what our plant was going through 10-12000 years ago would total extinction of all life on the plant have been possible? I don't think so but I am no expert. Early humans might have died off but other animals would survive well enough. This advanced life form would have to only care about what it has deemed sufficiently advanced creatures. IE we are special to something out there for some reason.

They would have to save us for some reason. Maybe they have a culture that is entirely peaceful and drives them to do what they see as good deeds? Maybe intelligent life is a little more rare than we think and this life form is lonely, going about the cosmos checking in on creatures that hold promise? Maybe this life form is some science nerd and was just curious how we would turn out? Maybe we were being saved for a selfish reason? Kind of like that whole "reptilians bred us to be slaves" thing but a little more on this side of the sane line. Somehow this advanced life form would benefit from saving us. Slaves, tourist attraction, food, etc. What would drive this life form to save us?

I guess I just got hung up on the "Why?" of what you posed......

Kevin A.

There is another interesting thing to note, separate from the original topic. Genesis 1.1 does not say "In the begining", as many people render it, but "בראשׁית" in Heb., and "Ἐν ἀρχῇ" in Greek. Both saying "In a begining". Some speculate multiple or alternate "beginings". A fact commonly known among Jews, but no certain answer for. Theological, or textual.

Early humans did almost die off. I read somewhere (but I can't remember where) that there was a cataclysmic event within the past 200,000 years or so. It might have been a large volcanic eruption (which spewed a lot of ash and sulphur dioxide gas into the atmosphere) and likely caused a long-term ice age (much more severe than the one we experienced 25,000 years ago. Anyway, the number of humans apparently dwindled to the thousands - basically one tribe. And the living humans on this planet descended from them. Geneticists researching variation in the human genome also put a high probability on this. If this is true, there is a remnant of this tribe in Africa (with all of the features - high cheekbones (Caucasian), oval (i.e. Asian) eyes, high hips (African) etc. But these guys are almost gone.

About the source of human genes? We're from here, at least, that is, our genetic information is consistent with earthly bacteria and early protozoans. The question is, though, did the first amino acids fall to earth from the sky (i.e. carried by a comet or by ejecta from an asteroid hitting another world like Mars). And, of course, there are scientists who find life existing at the deep recesses of the ocean floor that use geothermal sources (not sunlight) for their energy, some of which use sulfur instead of oxygen to carry on the basic cellular functions.

Bottom line, as Carl Sagan put it, "We are made of star stuff..."

Is it possible that the gap referred to in Genesis was the time of the dinosaurs? Science also claims some sort of cataclysmic event such as a comet hitting the earth could be a possibility of what ended the dinosuars. As far as I know, there are no mention of either of those in the Bible, yet we have proof because of fossils, and the worst global event in the Bible is a flood. An event such as a comet or asteroid smashing into the earth would probably leave it in a condition such as described in Gen. 1:2.

I like to think of the flood this way:
If you lived 15,000 years ago, and ice started to melt during/after the ice age (and assuming that you did not yet write anything down on clay or papyrus), you would begin to tell stories. Your children would tell stories, and after 10,000 years had passed, the stories would be magnificent indeed, with truth intermixed with mythology. So the Great Flood of the Bible is likely part truth. When the ice melted, I'm sure that thousands and thousands of people died, and animals, and plants. Take a look at the North Sea - just 30 or so meters deep in some places. Did you know that fishermen routinely haul up mammoth bones and mammoth tusks from the north sea. It wasn't under water 20,000 years ago. It was dry land...

About the Tower of Babel story:
Imagine living with extended family and clan members 3,000 years ago, then going to a city like New York, with skyscraper buildings, and in which Chinese people and Irish people, and Italian people, and English people etc. live - each having a dialect or unique language. How would you explain this?

Personally, I think Babel is a great story about humans abusing technology (god basically punishes them for building the tower). God is warning humans not to let technology get too far ahead of ethics and morality.

But the language issue - I think that's really about a country boy going to the big city.

Try to interpret the Bible from the perspective of the cultures that wrote it. Don't impose "dinosaurs" and "trilobytes" upon Hebrew people of 3000 years ago. Rather, try to find the spirit underlying the story.

Science has proven the flood story now. National Geographic has done a big spcial on it. The flood covered the whole Mediterranian ans Black Sea area. Also making the Ark's landing on Mount Ararat plausible. But the Muslim Turkish government wont let anyone go look. Supposidly there is a millitary base there....

But as to a "world flood"? No. Infact, in the Hebrew, the word used is "הארץ"; 'the land'. The idea associated with this word is a relatively small area. Like a country. Infact, it is the nickname for Israel. Short for "Eretz Yisrael", the land of israel. There are about 6 other words that could have been used to mean "planet" or "world". But none were used. In all reference of the flood, it only says that it was on 'the land'.

That's exactly how I always took it!

Probably just a religious attempt at explaining where different languages come from. However, there is evidence that mankind may have once spoke one language. Infact, I know 24 languages. Germanic, Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Italic, Greek, etc. And the similarities are astounding. There are relations between languages that are in no way classified as related. It's possible.

Sounds like a good approach.

I make no claims to any knowledge of "spirituality", but I would echo Imbleharry in pointing out we oughtn't to mistake religion and /history/. The Bible as it stands compiled today was never intended to be a document of historical record. It is a piece of active propaganda, used to further a very specific interpretation of the Judeo-Christian god. For sake of verisimilitude, it may indeed have a few historic facts in it, but to regard it as a history book is to actively ignore the intent and use of its compilers.

--Jaylemurph

Try this site: http://www.armenianhighland.com/index_light.html

Click: Indo-European Homeland; then click: The Indo-European Superfamily of Languages...

You are correct. The European (including Indian, Persian, and Afghani dialects) languages all descend from one source (roughly 10,000 years ago). The Altaic diverged from the Mother tongue perhaps 5,000 years prior. The Asian languages diverged from each other about 25,000 years ago, so the Ultimate Mother Tongue is at least that old (i.e. 25,000 years), but probably earlier by many millenia.

About the Flood again, BBC did a production about an epic tale from the Near East, with allusions that the Flood was actually in the Tigris/Euphrates river valley, and the ark was actually a merchant's vessel that carried goods up and down the river. But an unforecast diluge forced the merchant to evacuate people and several livestock to safety.

Research into the Great Flood points to a number of possible origins of the myth. But, suffice it to say, Native American Indian folklore recounts the flood, as do many other cultures worldwide. Hence my view that it alludes to the melt-off after the last great ice age.

One more thing about the Flood. What is the probability that it had never rained (for the prior 4 billion years of earth history)? And where did the water go afterward.

The bottom line: there is not enough H2O on the planet to inundate the whole planet...

Again, we mustn't take the bible literally.

By the way, the word: Bible comes from the Greek Biblion (Book). Look at it this way, before there were books, people used clay and papyrus. Try telling a story to a room full of people by holding up a 5 meter scroll and showing off the text.

But Christians, they had it going on. They could go into your home, open a book with text on one leaf, and pictures on the other leaf. 2000 years ago, they would show you the picture and tell you the story. This was early television. This was marketing at its best!

We all know the power of television today. Don't discount the role of the Book 2000 years ago in the marketing campaign we call xristianity.

I read a story somewhere. It stated the flood from the bible was when the water level rose and the land dam that blocked the mediterranean from flowing into the area thats now the black sea. Basicly that the flood story was a tale handed down from people that fled the waters that formed the black sea. Sorry a little drunk now.

Yeah, Plainbob13. I read that one, too. And that is the most credible direct link between nature and the flood myth as recounted in the bible. (But remember that it was likely melting ice that caused the Mediterranean water level to rise.)

BTW, do you know that the Great Rift Valley in Africa will eventually (millions of years hence) create a new super-island as a big chunk of Africa splits off and the sea (Indian Ocean) will rush in. How'd you like to write that flood story when it happens?

Nah. I'd rather write the story of the formation of the island of california.

Right on! Or, we could cooperate and write about the inundation of Florida over the course of the next 150 years - global warming and all. Or Bangladesh. Bangladesh makes me feel bad, though. Millions will die in the next 75 years.

LOL sounds like a plan and we can blame it on Obama and the leftwingers.

Another place i heard the story of the flood could have came from was babylon. I saw a show on discovery channel.

Man, I am so glad that I am not in the U.S. any more. Obama/Clinton. Doesn't matter, though. President of The United States doesn't actually have much power anyway. Just a figurehead to give the appearance of legitimacy to the U.S. system.

It's too bad. Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Mason, and Madison and the others really had a great idea. But, I guess, all Empires have their lifespans.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic here.

I think we all answered the question about "Gap Theory" and bible interpretation.

I'm moving off the thread now. See you around.

Sounds like the one I'm refering to. Here's a link to the NatGeo article on it.

Apparently it was after the ice age, and the Mediterranian swelled and flooded and formed the Black Sea. Something to that effect. But not a global flood.

I'm not aware of any serious linguist who would suggest there was ever one single language for mankind, and to suggest that the various language families are branched off of each other is a gross mis-statement. I mean, there are some people who would say so, but they're rarely competently trained in historical and comparative linguistic, and they stand in relation to that field in a way exactly parallel to where Sitchin or von Daniken stand to history.

I'd be happy to discuss in more detail why this information you're passing along is bunk, but I couldn't let it go by without comment.

--Jaylemurph

Thanks for the link. I'm looking at it now. Good stuff!

It may be bunk. I was alluding to something I had read a long time ago about the quest for the original proto-language. But, please do check out the link regarding the Indo-European Mother tongue.

Basically, linguistic archeologists trace the origin by comparing similar words among the European, Indian, and Persian languages. They look for words with similar roots (i.e. large white mountain, certain types of trees, water formations, etc.) and look for the geographic location wherein such things would have existed, oh some 10,000 years ago. basically, they use Grimm's law to determine the age of the languages, then backtrack and seek the geographic formation at that particular time to isolate the source of the Indo-European mother tongue.

Regarding the ancient Ultimate Mother Tongue, I'm doing an online search now. But I'm pretty sure I read it in Nat Geo twenty or so years ago.

Here's the Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-World_language

And other words: dugiter (milk maid in Indian Aryan)=Daughter in English

Swoester/Sister

Mater, Mother, Madre

Pater, Father, Padre etc.

Here's another link to Santa Fe's University website: http://ehl.santafe.edu/intro1.htm

I don't think the bible flood should be taken literally because so many other races have thier own flood survival folklore too. Many didnt live anywhere near the biblical Noah. So 10,000 years ago was probably really bad but not bad enought to wipe us out. The present day humanoid is somewhere around 200,000 years old according to mitochondrial dna testing. I imagine there were more cataclysms during that time period. Ultimately though you wonder....where did we come from? Scientists studying the human genome say somewhere along the line we picked up a few more genes that arent accounted for in a short period of time.

I always wondered what to think of the story of Eve. Eating the apple caused a curse? Or is the story symbolic meaning our species cross bread with another?

Well, never been into liguistics myslef, so you may be correct. However, with my experience in languages, it is not that far fetched as the average person would think. Either way, I've seen theories on it. And while I may not believe it to be the case, I also do not think that it is out of the question.
You sound like you know very little about languages. For instance, the majority of English, a Germanic language, is comprised of words from French, an Italic language. This is a common phenomenon.


Please do.

Nowhere in the Bible does Eve eat an apple. It was likely a pomegranate. Pomegranates were equally popular in Greek mythology and elsewhere.

And Yahweh never forbade Eve to eat the fruit. He only forbade Adam from eating it. Check Genesis again.

Symbolically, Eve is the mother-human goddess (like Ishtar/Oestre/Astarte/Ceres/Isis etc.), the originator of agriculture. Think about it. Men were out hunting and gathering (with some females, too). But females have a certain gift. Females, and not males, nurse infants. So what does a nursing mother do? Well, she becomes an expert about herbs and plants (medicines, foodstuffs). After several generations, Eve also discovers pollination and horticulture/agriculture, that is the growing of plants for subsistence. It is no coincidence that most (if not all) human societies had cults to the mother goddess. She is the one who brings life, the rains, and the growth cycle.

It is only after men (that is males) figure it out that the cult to the women is extinguished (rise of Greece/Macedon/Israel/Rome), and men have been botching it up ever since. Babylon, Egypt, and Sumeria had great cults to the females. (And great orgies, too, to celebrate the growing season.) The female queen (goddess) would symbolically fertilize the fields by engaging in activities with many males in the city-state. In fact, they did the same in Europe until the middle ages. Maypole dance ring a bell? Compare the Maypole dance with the forbidden fertility poles and "groves" to Astoroth in the Old Testament...

My mind is racing and I did not clarify. In my view, Eve, in eating the fruit of knowledge, gains the knowledge of agriculture. In doing so, she releases Adam and their descendants from the idealic life of hunter/gatherer (reliance on god/Nature) to one of agriculture. In fact, what does Yahweh do to punish them. He kicks them out of the garden and sends them off to grow their own food! He tells Adam that he will henceforth be forced to toil in the ground for his bread... etc.

Well, certainly symbolic. I always thought it was just refering to mankind devoloping knowledge, science, and technology. There are Hasids that believe we were just like animals once, and life was simple. Then we grew and learned. And things have been going down-hill since. The "fall of man" as Protestants call it, is considered by the Hasids as us devolping knowledge and culture. Not some woman eating fruit. Culture and knowledge, they argue, is what has led us to greed, war, and endless hours of work to support the system.

Sorry, I edited after your post:

My mind is racing and I did not clarify. In my view, Eve, in eating the fruit of knowledge, gains the knowledge of agriculture. In doing so, she releases Adam and their descendants from the idealic life of hunter/gatherer (reliance on god/Nature) to one of agriculture. In fact, what does Yahweh do to punish them. He kicks them out of the garden and sends them off to grow their own food! He tells Adam that he will henceforth be forced to toil in the ground for his bread... etc.

Yeah. The fall from grace is really man leaving the childhood of reliance upon god and Nature, and developing technology and agriculture. In fact, it is agriculture that allows humans to grow their first cities, so these humans must grow mathematics, engineering, etc. to build...

The distinction is profound though, because in the West, the Judeo-Christian tradition attempts to control Nature (god gives humans dominion over the animals etc.), but in the East, human philosophy strives to live in harmony with Creation...

Maybe the fall is alluding to the antagonism. Man is part of Nature. How, then, could he ever hope to control it?

Many mysic Jews think on these lines. That's where I got the idea. A lot of times when people say "Judeo-Christian" it really just means "Christians". Jews have always been more naturalist than Christians. That's where the whole Sabbath thing came from. To have a day where the earth just lived on it's own, without our interferance. It's quite true as you say. The West, "Christian-based" is obsessed with science and technology. However, I think it is contrary to the ideas of their Scriptures. Look at Jesus, for instance. Many of His followers drive SUV's and Hummers, live in huge houses, support wars around the world, eat steak at every meal, etc. But how did Jesus live? After a possible short career as an artisan, He became homeless, penny-less, jobless. Had one outfit. Traveled around from town to town teaching and helping people. Staying as a guest at their homes. Just simple and hanging out. Teaching some hippie sounding stuff about how we should sell our possessions and live simple like Him.

you know, i never thought about that, eating that apple made adam and eve aware of themselves or surroundings.. along those lines right?
totally that apple could symbolise something

the lol's! : )!

so the aliens killed a planet...........to create life?

i do agree that the incidence has something to do with extraterrestrial. we all measure the world in length, breadth, height, weight etc. is there any answer for the infinite outside our universe. is there any end to it? it defies all the laws of sciences. is it not mind boggling? i go crazy when try to resolve this.

You can say whatever you'd like but it doesn't make it true. As it pertains to the bible, people are usually looking for truth.

I think you're saying more than you know. The people who do this sort of work are not "linguistic archeologists" [sic]; they're historical linguists. They use a system called comparative linguistics that's more complicated than what you present here. Grimm's law is a descriptive law that describes certain sound in changes only in Germanic languages. Its principal purpose is not diagnostic aging (although it can, at times, be used in dating). And geography can be used as a basis, but there are many other kinds of words they prefer to use, since they are less likely to be borrowed words -- as you point out, familial relationships, the verb "to be" and body parts are used more commonly.




No. On the contrary. I know a lot. Based on what you write here, more than you do. (Sorry but you opened yourself up for that shot...)

There are indeed many French words -- actually speaking, Norman words -- in English. In fact, English has borrowed the same French words three and four times over. But everyone of the ten most used words are Anglo-Saxon. Most basic words (body parts, family relationships, animals) are also of Germanic origin. And the term for French is Romance or Latinate, not Italic. Italic is a type font. Both modern French (which is a mix of several previous languages spoken in the area that is now France) and Italy (same thing, but in the area of Italy) are sister languages, descended from (late Vulgar) Latin.

But yes, borrowing is common in every language.

But to briefly mention why "mother tongue" theories are dubious is that the only evidence supporting it statistical analysis, which basically overlooks many of the processes that historical linguists investigate. It's a problem of quantity over quality. It also assumes relationship between words where none may exist -- there is only a limited number of sounds the human mouth can make, so sometimes similar sounding words crop up in otherwise completely unrelated languages. It also takes no account of straight word borrowing -- if the Chinese use the word "Mikey Mouse" it's almost certainly a borrowed phrase, not a significant token of relationship. There have been no findings that I'm aware of based on mass comparison that has any sort of consensus in the field of linguistics.

--Jaylemurph

edit: grammar

I am a proponent of the Gap theory in a sense. I think I might be able to take some credit for originally postulating it on this board but I do not agree with the way it is presented here. I do feel strongly that it does account for the existence of the fossile record though.

Dictionary.com:

"I·tal·ic (-tlk, -tl-)
adj.
Of or relating to the branch of the Indo-European language family that includes Latin, Faliscan, Oscan, Umbrian, and the Romance languages"


You really proved how much smarter you are.

I would like to go on record as completely disagreeing with everything that you said there. It is my opinion that the bible is so proven archaeologically speaking that any doubts as to its historical validity would come from the bias of the commentator.

Can you back that up ? What proven Archaeological finds can confirm the bible as a historical text ? As far as i was aware their was a split within Archaeology making up two schools, Bible minimalism and maximalism. Another point to remember is that the New Testament, the earliest mentions of Christ were writen in the 50's CE (in the form of Paul's letters) and were first hand accounts. Also the exact level of historical accuracy contained in these texts is hotly debated. There are very few non-Christian references to the life of Jesus and the majority of these are quite late. The books of the bible today are only handful of the original gospels and books compiled, the bible has been edited, re-arranged and in some parts systematically destroyed by the church that it is not a reliable historical record of the time.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, many of the most famous stories (like the Exodus) have no basis in historical record. And I've already said that there are /some/ things that are true in it, just not the bulk of it.

--Jaylemurph