Apologetics

Apparently, the meaning of that word is the study of the fidelity of the Bible. A best seller, the leading authority on christianity, it is not only famous but still the centre of hot debate. I am no scholar, and definitely not a leading authority on matters spiritual, historical, anthropological nor scientific, but I do enjoy entertaining the thought that my neurons are stimulated every once in a while.
Having said that, don't expect a long or scholarly discourse on the history of the bible. I'm just here to lay some very rudimentary facts I've discovered along my investigation about why the bible is accepted with as much authority as it does have in religious circles.
The history of the bible is a pretty good place to start. I personally tend to work chronologically, even if that means learning Hellenic before learning Modern Greek. (Which, btw, is NOT gonna happen... Biblical Hebrew is more than enough for me.)
As a lengthy sidenote, a common misconception people seem to have is that Latin is one of the oldest languages in the world. While I'm not saying that it isn't old, it certainly is far from being oldest. It had been brought to my attention that certain people carry the misguided notion that Latin, being "very ancient" precedes even Ancient Greek.
However, just consider two very simple facts. Plato, Aristotle and Socrates were and are still considered to be *Greek*, the latest who died in 322BC. Some of you may enjoy tossing these sorts of speculation as being "guesswork", but I think that a philosopher of an unambiguous nationality would arise from an unestablished nation. Suffice it to say, I think it's entirely reasonable to surmise (as well may be easily varified with historical documents) that the Greeks were already a nation around 500BC (Especially given the fact that Socrates was born around 470BC). The Roman Empire started around 27B.C., a whopping half-millenium later.
A quick look into any decent encyclopedia will show that the early makings of the greek nation (or then, "hellenic" nation) were already settled in the 800's BC. The Roman Republic (which preceeded the Roman Empire) started around 500BC.
So while the two didn't share a mother-daughter relationship (linguistically), we can see that the two were very much alive at the time and that Greek is not a consequence of the disassembly of the Roman Empire.
Going back to the core of the matter, is the assembly of the Bible. here are the facts, as I know them, in their most basic form. The reader is encouraged to verify and search for evidence of these on their own.
1. The various books of the bible were written by various men, of different nationalities and generations (nay, centuries).
2. The bible has more original sources than any other work (Socrates or Confucius, for example)
3. When the bible was assembled (by a group of *scholars*, not just rabid fanatics), the books of the bible went under a process of inclusion rather than exclusion. That is to say, a book had to pass all five tests before it was admitted into the bible, rather than the notion that books were later excluded for inconsistency or invalidity.
3.b) Of these five tests, one was the test of whether or not it was "God-breathed". For anyone religious, this is a pretty infallible test, the idea being that God doesn't lie about his works. But for those of less religious inclinations, there were still four other tests of solid academic work, (of which I'm not knowledgable enough to explain in detail).
It is point two that I would like to expand on. It's just a small tidbit, but one that really got me thinking, and one that I hope will spark the same excitement in the reader. Consider, for example, the works of Confucius. He lived a while ago, and like some other brilliant minds at the time (Socrates, for example, who was only born a century later, or so) didn't write anything down. All his teachings (conversations, really) were recorded by his students, years after his death. That the closest original 2nd-hand sources are decades or even centuries after his death? Why does nobody question how "true" it is? We all concede that "Confucius said, 'blahblahblah'," and we agree with it. Yet, the bible, which has so many more 1st-hand sources, on top of being cross-refernced with historical accuracy from outside sources, is constantly called into question.
Another misconception is that our current English bible is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation [ad infinitum], which is totally not true. Given the wonderful and revealing art of linguistics, coupled with originals and copies of the original texts, the bible is actually just a direct translation from the original ancient hebrew or greek or whatever into English. (Remember, only the old stuff was written in hebrew. The New Testament was written several centuries later.)
Having taken a course on Biblical Hebrew, I will admit that translation from a very old language (incidentally, Biblical Hebrew predates both Latin and Greek easily. So for those of you who blindly grasp at Latin, thinking it's a dignified and ancient language, you are sorely mistaken) to a very new and recent language can be difficult. But luckily, the translations were done by some very capable people, unlike students such as myself who have a perverse propensity for procrastination. Translations were done in teams, so it was no individual effort. If some area is ambiguous or called into question, another expert would look at it. The bible is no fan-sub. What you read is pretty much what was originally written. Debating the contents is another matter entirely, but on the subject of its accuracy as an ancient book, I say it's doing pretty good.
How many of your notions of the bible have been changed or challenged? Or more directly, how many people do you know criticise and attack the validity of the bible without having thoroughly researched its history and roots?
Just something to think about...

P.S. I've got a whole other rant about ppl who argue about things they know nothing about coming up...