Evidence for God from Science

First, I do apologize if this is in the wrong forum, but I'm not really sure where to place ny question.

Said question is this:

Why are there four Gospels?

There were twelve Apostles.

Only four have been passed on.

Links and such appreciated.

Wishing every one all the very best.

The gospels which were the most authentic were chosen.

Thanks for the reply...but...that doesn't really help.

I mean...Are you saying those four Apostles were more authentic than the other eight? Or that there were twelve Apostles, who may or may not have written anything...but only four were used and the others were just, y'know, floating around as a group of 'spares'...In case one of the four got flat...or something...?

Also, thinking a tad further along about things.

We have access now to better understanding of the ancient languages in which the original books were written. We also, though archeology etc, have access to older manustripts -Which would possibly be 'closer' to the original documents (Less transcription errors and other things creeping in over the many, many years of copying etc)

Why isn't the current material 'up dated' or rectified with what's available given our better knowledge (In some cases) of the original?

Very much cheers to all.

Thadeyus wrote:Thanks for the reply...but...that doesn't really help.

I mean...Are you saying those four Apostles were more authentic than the other eight? Or that there were twelve Apostles, who may or may not have written anything...but only four were used and the others were just, y'know, floating around as a group of 'spares'...In case one of the four got flat...or something...?

Also, thinking a tad further along about things.

We have access now to better understanding of the ancient languages in which the original books were written. We also, though archeology etc, have access to older manustripts -Which would possibly be 'closer' to the original documents (Less transcription errors and other things creeping in over the many, many years of copying etc)

Why isn't the current material 'up dated' or rectified with what's available given our better knowledge (In some cases) of the original?

Very much cheers to all.

I think you should read about Biblical Textual Criticism, unlike the name, this method helps determining the authenticity of the text.

First not all apostles wrote gospels. Those who did are the ones you have to choose from, the gospels were selected based on how early the source was, the date of writing, then how authentic the source was by reputation, then how authentic is it in terms of vocab and language, then how much of what it says is corroborated by other pieces of writings. Then how strong are the theological points? does the gospel hint at being unjustly tempered? Or does it teach some parts of a heresy?

Those points need to be satisfied for any piece of writing. The gospels which did were chosen.

We have access now to better understanding of the ancient languages in which the original books were written. We also, though archeology etc, have access to older manustripts -Which would possibly be 'closer' to the original documents (Less transcription errors and other things creeping in over the many, many years of copying etc)

Why isn't the current material 'up dated' or rectified with what's available given our better knowledge (In some cases) of the original?

You need to be more specific on this, please. Give me a few examples of what you think should be updated?

The below link is a five minute read, at max, but I highly recommend you read it and let me know of your impressions.

Is Today's Bible the Real Bible?

Oh..okay that all makes....*Blinks*....*TIlts head* Wait a minute!

neo-x wrote:First not all apostles wrote gospels.

Um, pardon? Are you saying here that not all the Apostle's were literate? Yeah, I can understand/agree with this. However...that their words/ideas/thoughts/experiences wouldn't be written down by those to whom they were 'Apostling' too seems...odd as a concept. It is generally agreed that all of the Apostle's survived at least for a time after the event. So saying that those who follow the Apostles after the Apostle's followed JC wouldn't have said people's words/utterances recorded I find strange.

neo-x wrote:Those who did are the ones you have to choose from, the gospels were selected based on how early the source was, the date of writing, then how authentic the source was by reputation, then how authentic is it in terms of vocab and language, then how much of what it says is corroborated by other pieces of writings.

Um...what do you mean 'Earliest'? Is this saying that even the four books as presented aren't as created? How much veracity then can one have about their contents?

neo-x wrote:Then how strong are the theological points? does the gospel hint at being unjustly tempered? Or does it teach some parts of a heresy?

My point is, if that ALL of the Apostle's had their words recorded, either by themselves or others and since they were ALL Apostles. How could ANY of their words/works be heresy?

As for 'Earliest bibles' off the top of my head I seem to remember reading about a beautifully illuminated work some where in Ireland dating back to something like the 14th or 15th century for a starting point. Surely there are others of such? Hence going to them with modern linguistic understanding of the language within said pages and translating said information.

Just the thoughts that struck me by your reply.

Wishing you and yours all the very best.

Much cheers to all.

Thadeyus, if you re-read the NT a bit more carefully, you see there are quite a few more than twelve persons identified as Apostles. Also, Mark and Luke were not Apostles, AFAIK, though they may have been, and add to the number of Apostles I'm aware of. But where does the NT say that every Apostle should write an account of the life of Jesus?