There is no written copy of the original Homer either. I couldn't tell you precisely how, but the ways in which we know there have not been significant changes to the Old Testament Bible are the same as the ways we know that there have not been significant changes to Homer.
Homer's poetry was created at a time when there was no written language being used for literature - the language used by the Mycenaean's was almost exclusively used for accounting purposes, i.e. 10 goats exchanged for 5 vases and so forth. Milman Parry speculated, and proved the likelihood, that Homer, although never written down originally, was fairly consistant in how it was passed down over the nearly 1000 years of the Greek dark ages. He did a great deal of work with a group of peoples in Yugoslavia who had a very similar oral tradition in the early 1900s. This "theory" of his is now, to historians, about as much a theory as the theory of evolution is to scientists. To be perfectly frank, I don't feel the need to redo Milman Parry's work on Homer and the Bible and I trust the fact that it's a nearly unanimously accepted theory by the community of people far more educated than I in matters such as this - again, much like evolution.
Quote:
|
If evolution as we know it is consistent it precludes the existence of the God you believe in, or at least makes the stories regarding the Garden of Eden and the birth of man a little bit nonsensical.
|
Again, this presupposes that most religious folk believe in interpreting the Bible literally. Most do not, especially regarding this. Again, the "truthfulness" of the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with its literal accuracy, and most religious scholars agree on this as far as I am aware. The old testament is written essentially as a large book of poetry, and to expect poetic texts to be literally accurate is, at the very least, absurd.