Really? Islamic Festival Eid al-Adha https://www.learnreligions.com/eid-al-adha-2004304 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice
Ecclesiastes 9:11 "I have seen something else under the sun, the race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong. Nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned. But time and chance happen to all. Moreover, no man knows when his hour will come, as fish are caught in a cruel net, or birds taken in a snare, so are men trapped by evil times that fall unexpected on them."
While there are some accurate historical references in the Bible - the book is far from "historical" - in any reasonable sense of the word - and nor was it intended to be and nor should we expect it to be.
The bible parallels world history in that as time progressed the details got better. We started out with Romulus and Remus for Roman history and wound up with tremendously detailed accounts of the latter emperors and the empire. From the time of the Israelite's appearing in Canaan the details get better. The final account in the bible, that of Luke's Acts, is quite precise - even to things like ancient shipping and political figures. We don't have this with Greek and Roman gods, do we?
The feast is not a sacrifice.. Do you not know the difference? Do you think having Ham at Easter or Turkey at Christmas is a blood sacrifice to appease God?
Really? You found something? Whoever this "Luke" was he was an historian and a preacher - he never met Jesus, but likely he could have died like Jesus did when he was taken to Rome.
Luke (some contest the physician bit) wrote his Gospel account before ca 66 AD. Given he wrote Acts later I suggest Luke's Gospel was written much earlier. Paul wrote about Jesus about twenty years after the crucifixion. there's a whole industry of wanna-be scholars, quoting each other's work, who want you to believe the Gospels are a late first or even second century artifice.
Gospel of Luke At a Glance Gospel Genre: (4/5) **** Reliability of Dating: (4/5) **** Length of Text: Greek Original Language: Ancient Translations: Modern Translations: English Estimated Range of Dating: 80-130 A.D. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html
Not sure what you are trying to get at here ? We have a whole lot with respect to Greek, Roman, and other Gods. The city of Troy for example and the Minoans. Sure the authors of the Bible names some historical figures - there is a whole lot of made up stuff and myths borrowed from general near east religious belief as well. The oldest Bibles are actually much better at depicting the religious beliefs of the Israelite's. Today's modern Bibles have whitewashed out much of the interesting stuff over time as it did not fit well with modern religious dogma.
We now have, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Old Testament, going back to the First Century BC. That's 1,000 year earlier than the old Medieval manuscripts. Not much difference for over 2,000 years. Same with the New Testament. Not much difference from the oldest extant texts till today (except for Jehovah Witness and Mormon "bibles" of course.) If you go to Israel with archaeological trowel in hand you might uncover the ruins of King Ahab's forts, Solomon's palaces or the town where Jesus grew up (all of which was supposed not to have existed in the 1700-1800's.) Go up to Mount Olympus with your trowel and you will be digging for a long time to find evidence for Zeus or his quarreling family.
Depends on whether we are talking numbers or significance .. but in either case the number of changes is quite large .. on a relative basis. I prefer to look at the more significant changes rather than talk about typo's. How the Bible was put together - both parts - and changed over time is a fascinating subject. There are whole books that were in the some of the Oldest Bibles such as the Codex Sinaiticus .. no long ending of Mark ... and a host of other differences .. many which are significant. There is lots of "artistic licence" aka Pious fraud - altering a word or two - or adding a whole line - to make the text better reflect the dogma of the say. Typically this would be around things like sex .. or related to strict monotheism - and a few other areas. These are intentional changes - interpolation, edits omissions, addition. Here is a very good example from the OT - this one surrounding the desire to hide Israel's past monolateralism. - Monolatry is belief in the existence of many gods but with the consistent worship of only one ON Page 7 you will find the same passage .. from 3 different Bibles. Deuteronomy 32:43 LXX - 4DeutQ - Masoritic Text The first two are older (4DeutQ is the Qumran Text) - pre common era. The Masoritic Text is 700-900 AD. The first two - older versions - talk about other deities in the presence of God .. "Son's of God" (as referenced in numerous other places in the Bible) - Job - Genesis . LXX - "O heavens rejoice with him .. Bow to him o sons of the divine" This is the heavens rejoicing here - this is giving the status of the group being referred to .. "the heavens" ... those who constitute the divine Pantheon (which is discussed in other passages) Sons of the divine - bowing to the Most High .. it paints a nice clear picture. "O Nations rejoice with him and let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in him" So after mentioning the top tier first ... we move down to the lower tiers ... Angels of the divine, and Humans/Nations. http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf The above is echoed in (4DeutQ) but not in much detail. In the Masoretic Text any mention of other divinities is completely omitted. It is not a well kept secret that Biblical Scholarship recognizes that the Israelite's believed in a divine pantheon The "Divine Council" mentioned in Psalm 82 ... one of the few places where the God El is mentioned by Name .. and (while this is debated but generally agreed these days) that it is El who is at the head of the council. Either way - El and YHWH are mentioned .. and they are in the midst of a divine council. This Journal Article - from the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures (consider the source -- it doesn't get much better) . gives arguments on both sides of the fence and concludes that it is El who is the speaking voice. Academic rigor dictates that the other side is presented (which he then argues against/refutes or tries to) http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_144.pdf The majority of biblical scholars believe that the God of Abraham was El .. but either way - there was a connection between the two in the minds of the Israelites. El keeps cropping up .. but is never condemned like Baal - one of the "Sons of God" and Asherah - El's consort. Deuteronomy 32:43 - is a significant omission. - as without it ... the other mentions of divinities - "Sons of God" - which are mentioned a number of times ... don't quite have the same impact as the level of understanding of what is meant is not as clear.
The "ending of Mark" is of interest. I will copy and paste this Since Mark is our earliest Gospel, written according to most scholars around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, or perhaps in the decade before, we have strong textual evidence that the first generation of Jesus followers were perfectly fine with a Gospel account that recounted no appearances of Jesus. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/ I could go on about this (but it's supper time) but one point. If Mark was written AD 70 then he is preceded by lot of other Gospel material. Paul wrote about the risen Christ twenty years after the crucifixion. Paul wrote extensively about Jesus. Paul died about AD68 Luke assembled (but never met Jesus) his Gospel of Luke before Acts, and Acts ends abruptly - Luke was imprisoned and died with Paul. ca AD 68 I wonder if Luke copied portions from Mark? Luke collated lots of material from (presumably) eye witnesses plus scripture already in circulation. It's quite possible that the complete Mark is simply missing. Happens elsewhere. People want to make an issue about Mark being the "first" Gospel or that he or she didn't mention the crucifixion - but Mark mentions the raising from the dead. I suggest being cautious and call ideas about the Gospels for what they are - theories.
