jaxspade: I am sorry if my comments were construed as offensive. That was not my intent. I was sharing information that was given to me by my Jesuit Priest Professors when I said it was more of a religious guideline than strict doctrine. Back in the late '80s I was taking classes to get my IT professional certification and the best college for that program at the time (in my area), was Regis College in Denver. A Jesuit College. Part of the requirements was to take several credits of religious studies (turned out to be 2 years of classes). It turned out to be more fun than I anticipated, because I was used to sunday school and church. Actually learning about the history of religions and the implications on society is completely different than sitting in church trying not to fall asleep.
Most of my professors agreed (and taught) that using the bible as we know it today as a literal representation of gods word was way off base due to the fact that our current version of the bible has been corrupted by interpretation and translation for _many_ years. Only when you can study some of the oldest transcripts can you get the complete meaning and story that the bible presents. The King James version of the bible (which is most widely used in America), is one of the more _impure_ (for lack of a better word) versions of the new testament due to the several different language translations. When you translate something from one language to another to another something will always get lost or misconstrued and then it is up to the religious leaders of the time to "interpret" the intended meaning. This is why the Professors taught it as guidelines to live your life by and not the true words of God, rather the interpretation of God's words.
I also do not believe in god. BUT I could be wrong and freely admit that. I have searched for that higher power. I have been baptized, attended baptist church as a kid, Spent several years studying the version of the bible used by Jehovah Witnesses, got involved with Born again Christians (who spend way too much time feeling sorry for their sins and not living a happy life), spent some time with the Morman community (some scary sheeite there!), and am now surrounded by Catholics thanks to my Wifes side of the family (some of the most closed minded people when it comes to their religion).
There is still debate as to what language most of the texts were written in, but most believe it was Greek although the argument is that some were written in Aramaic. There are even "books" that were left out. When the different tomes were written a group of clerics got together to decide what was actually put in the new testament. Over the course of several hundred years some books were even removed.
Although I do not at the moment believe in god, I do believe that _something_ happened at the time that Jesus was supposed to have walked the earth. Something that affected the Christians, Muslims and Hindus (sorry if I left anyone out). So why was this phenomenon isolated to the European continent and surrounding areas? China has no historical reference to Christ's birth. Nor does north or south America, southern Africa, or Australia. This is confusing for _many_ scholars as well.
BTW I have forgot many things I learned in the religious studies classes (after all it was 20+ years ago and _many_ parties later), but would recommend them to _everyone_, if not to learn about your particular religion, then to understand the differences and similarities between ALL religions.
If I may bring it back to topic, Due to all the translations and interpretations, the timing of the bible may have suffered as well. The measurement of time has changed over the years so it is possible that the meaning of a "year" has changed as well. This did not come up in one of my classes, but it was something I saw on a Discovery Channel special about the Dead Sea Scrolls. One of the comments by the Scholars translating the Scrolls (which were not allowed out of the devout religious leaders control for many many years for fear that they would be misinterpreted), was that the translation of the words for years and centuries or eons were similar (I may have the increments wrong) and early man had no concept of "thousands of years", as we do today. So it could be possible that the 6000 years of earth (or whatever) could be interpreted as 6000 centuries or eons.
Ok, I guess I can blame that ramble on the extra strong coffee I got on my way to work. I should know better than to fill up my cup from the pot labeled "Jet Fuel".