Who's "they"? Orthodox theologians that you've obviously never read? Anyway, this actually proves my point, they don't really "care" because they don't have to. Nothing is hingeing on the Bible's authenticity for Orthodoxy.
It does. For one the Ark story is completely taken from Gilgamesh. Jesus Story is hardly original (take the time to actually study it, and his rivals). You really seem unable to deal with how fabricated the bible really is. The bible's authenticity is only authentic to where you can establish that it was written by man. It's Authenticity stops there son. The Orthodoxy does not explain the bible's origins in detail, and makes quite a bit of assumptions.
Let's just explore the problems with calling the bible a "historical document of truth". Let's start with inconsistency in Genesis alone, and why it's all fabricated nonsense by some moron that didn't know anything about the real world or how it really came to be.
To save myself time, I am going to quote from another source even though I had written my own articles here on Genesis:
In the first chapter of Genesis, there is a legendary account of the creation. These legends contradict each other at every point. In the first, the earth is represented as coming into existence completely enveloped in water. In the second, it is represented as being originally a dry plain, lacking even moisture. 1 (Gen. 1:2, 9; 2:6) According to the first account, all the fowls of the air were created out of water-
-"and God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth"
and the waters brought forth "every winged fowl after his kind." But according to the second account, the fowls were created out of the ground "
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air." 2 (Gen. 1:20, 21; 2:19) The first story has it that the trees were made on the third day, and that man was formed three days later. The second story declares that man was made before the trees. 3 (Gen.1:12,13, 26-31; 2:7,9.)
If the first account is true, the fowls were created before man. If the second is correct, they were created after man. 4 (Gen. 1:21, 27 2:7,19) The first tale distinctly teaches that man was created after all the beasts. The second is as positive in its assurance that man was formed before the beasts. 5 (Gen. 1:25,27; 2:7,19) In the first account, we are told that man and woman were created at the same time, by one act of creation, and after all other things had been made. In the second story, it is explained that the man was made alone; that the woman was not formed until the man had failed to find a wife among the beasts, and that the making of the man, before the beasts, and of the woman, after the beasts, constituted two distinct acts of creation. 6 (Gen. 1:25,27; 2:7, 20-22) According to the first account, the man and the woman were given the freedom of the world, and were told to subdue it. According to the second, they were confined within the narrow limits of a garden.
And that is just a few examples with concerning the Bibles Authenticity.
Am I trained or am I self-inventing? Or did I train myself?
You seem to be both.. I know I was when I was a Christian. I don't preach nonsense anymore, nor do I self-invent my own interpretations of the bible and then preach it like you do.
I'm sorry, did I say this somewhere? I'm a prime example because, what, I've been appealing to the accuracy of the Bible for something? Where and when?
So you appeal to the accuracy of the bible without actually questioning and examining it's accuracy correct? You might want to work on that accuracy problem with the bible. And even if those who wrote the bible managed to get it right, it still wouldn't give the bible authenticity!
Which source from "The Orthodoxy" are you referring to?
To many, the origin of the Bible can be summed-up as follows: "A mere translation of a translation of an interpretation of an oral tradition" This is essentially true. Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text, or the Textus Receptus , and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations.
The other problem you have is this:The Bible is God's letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers over a period of over 1,600 years.
[/u][/i] So it's pretty dang funny when you read the bible. The bible itself is a assumed as GOD's Word! Please feel free to authenticate that!
[/U][/I] .. What's worse, religious people try to authenticate it through vague prophecies. Talk about gullible! It get's worse when many of the prophecies fail to come to be (such as many prophecies surrounding Jesus's own birth), or when they proclaim the obvious like the end of the world!.
Surely you don't have documents younger than the Bible in mind? If you have more ancient sources that have parallels with the Bible, I'd love to read them.
Go read up on other religions far more ancient than Christianity son! Hello! Even the nativity scenes are similar to that of Egyptian nativity scenes (as a small example).
I'm not sure how it works but I assure you, my conversion from atheism wasn't because I somehow got brainwashed as an adult. If anyone comes across as a rabid, fundamentalist with hints of having been brainwashed, I think it's you my friend.
Then you won't be afraid to read some books on the mechanics of brainwashing and subliminal programming and then actually re-read the bible or observe how religion operates on a daily basis. If you really are so sure about your position you won't have much to worry about.