There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

HI Bertot,My point is that you're making a special pleading for Biblical history, the same one creationists make for creation science. Rather than meeting the standards of science, creation scientists instead argue those standards are too high. And rather than meeting the standards of history, you're instead arguing that they're too high.Why you don't just take the standards that have been established and that have been so successful and try to meet them? Unless you do that it will always appear that because the evidence necessary to meeting those standards doesn't exist, you're instead trying to get the bar lowered.This would be like a student who couldn't score in the 90s arguing that the threshold should be lowered so that a score in the 80s is still an A. If he's successful in this argument then he'll get an A, but it won't make him any smarter.--Percy

Percy writesIt is interesting how someone can get something exbaclly zackwards. Creation scientist dont argue that the standards are to high. Actually from a "science" and "logical" standpoint CS can meet all the requirements to establish itself as scientific. It is the current standards of science that have lowered the bar to meet thier own standards, then they dont even follow thier own standards.You simlpy replace the word "inaccurate" with "too high". I never said any current standard was too high, its that it is unrealistic, unobjective and unreasonable. The expression "too high" would imply that your standards are somehow realistic in the first place, they are not. Secondly, I pointed out that your position and beliefs cannot even meet your own standards. This statement is typical of your whole position and the "current" way of thinking. It asks people to abandon what was once accepted as resonable and realistic and discrard it for a "less" than accurate method. Oh Bertot, cant you just see that we are right here and give in to us. Sorry, no I cant. Im sorry, I cant ignore the "fact"' that for example, the word "science", originally meant "Knowledge", or to "have knowledge of", or the acquistion of knowledge and that there are many ways to obtain that knowledge. Now the modern day evolutionary scientist comes along and perverts its simple meaning and insists on "speacial pleading", that we should just go along with thier new and improved definiton of the word and the interpretation of how it should be applied. Sorry, no matter how much you plead it will retain its original meaning. The so-called "Model", that you and others continually push for and want others to buy into, is yours and your alone. You have changed whole definitions and meanings of words to cram the ToE down peoples throats.One of the most interesting points about this so-called new and approved method of (science)understanding the existence of things, is that it doesnt even attempt to discuss, explain or approach the "origin" or real explanation of anything. It says this is the only thing we can do, so lets not include even the possibility of any other form of evidence or its methodologies. Its method says, this is a tree and this is how it works, but we cant begin to explain how its parts or the things that make it a tree got here, so lets just not discuss it at all. When pushed to discuss the matters they (you) reject outright obvious counter factual hypothesis and evidence to the contrary, to the above approach that that says lets not worry about it anyway. Evidence that clearly would indicate the existence of a creator is met with the overwhelming opposition that states, "well thats no evidence at all". It asks us to abondon reason and direct evidence for his exsistence based soley on the dissatisfaction and assertion of those that reject any method of fact gathering but thier own . The method of fact gathering that current level of higher education wishes us to accept is not "higher" than anything, it is purposely restrictive to avoid any contradiction and evidence to the contray.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This is getting off the topic, I only used creation science as an example, but at some point you have to start living in the real world and begin saying things that are actually true. The Discovery Institute, the major ID organization, has made frequent public pronouncements stating that methodological naturalism, the view of modern science, is too limiting because it doesn't allow for the supernatural, and the Insitute for Creation Research, the major YEC organization, completely concurs. This is reality, Bertot, you can't just wish it away.You're being just as obdurate when you deny making a very similar plea for more lenient historical standards, because that's exactly what you're doing, for example here in your Message 189: There you are stating that you want the existence of God added to the standards of history, along with some other less lofty requests. You don't want to have to offer any historically or archeologically reliable evidence of God, you just want Him added. And would I be correct in guessing you were really referring to the Christian God, or will Zeus or Vishnu do?The way to make your views accepted is to work within the established standards of historical science. Changing the standards just so you can claim your views are legitimate history wouldn't give them any legitimacy but would instead destroy history as a field of scholarly inquiry. History is a respectable field of study because it possesses carefully established standards developed over centuries, and it doesn't exist to serve the purposes of religion, not yours or anyone else's.--Percy

Your points you make to Bertot about history as a discipline drew me back to a very poignant passage from Shotwell’s 1922 book An Introduction to the history of history. New York, Colombia University Press.On page 284 we read: The only history of importance to the Christian was that which justified his (sic) faith, and it all lay within the sacred writings of the Jews. So, as the vision of the judgement day became fainter and the Church began to settle itself in time and not in eternity, it looked back to a different past from that which lay beyond the pagan world. The sacred scriptures of the Jews had replaced that literature of antiquity. A revolution was taking place in the history of history. Homer and Thucydides, Polybius and Livvy, the glory of the old regime, shared a common fate. The scientific output of the most luminous minds the world had known was classed with the legends that had grown up by the campfires of primitive barbarians. All was pagan, which meant that all was delusive and unreliable except where it could be tested in the light of the new religion or where it forced itself by the needs of life into the world of common experience.So it is nothing new that a Christian wants to revise what critical history is because an academic approach doesn’t aid their cause.Shotwell continues on page 286 with something that Bertot would do well to keep in mind when he wants to undo centuries of hard work in the area of critical history writing. It was, therefore, a calamity for historiography, that the new standards won the day. The authority of a revealed religion sanctioned but one scheme of history through the vast and intricate evolution of the antique world. A well nigh insurmountable obstacle was erected to scientific enquiry, one which has taken at least nineteen centuries to surmount. It seems to me that Berot wishes to ignore the hard work of thousands of scholars over many centuries, and construct his own type of historical enquiry that the rest of us must follow.

Brian writes:Not that is matters that much to you, but I will return to yours and Percy's latest remarks as soon as I can, have been very busy with things.Thanks for keeping the discussion alive.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Ill try and get to you most recent posts this evening, but I thought the following was sort of funny.In post 171, Brian writes: In this post he quotes from a book from 1922. As Jim Carey would say, "Alllrighty then"!!!!D Bertot

The point is that Brian is quoting something that was said by Shotwell whereas you are using the writings of Thompson which deal with archaeology and which could have been updated.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Percival writes:In a way its off topic and in a way it is not. The example you used is "spot on", sorry I couldnt resist. Sorry for the lateness of my response, just very busy. I dont live in a third world country like Brian, so things are a bit busier here. Im just kidding here, Brian, dont freak out on me, Im just "busting you chops". That an expression we use here, like say, "spot on" or "get to the dag blasted point", or somethiing or other.The institute is exacally correct and this was my meaning when I contended that people can and do get things exbacally zackwards. The present way of thinking concerning what constitutes evidence in certain and most areas, has changed "its" standards to fit certain theories. It has abandoned commonly held practices, methodologies and standards that were accepted for centuries. Principles that were accepted and founded on sound principles. The principles and standards themselves started to change as skepticism and athiesm began to grow. In other words the "bar" was lowered to allow for the acceptance of these other ideologies, not the other way around. This is why the point you are trying to make is exacally bacwards. You've got it all wrong.However, if we take a strict look at the methods employed by this so-called methodological naturalism, it goes way beyond in applying its so-called natural standards to its own conclusions and its own principles. It attempts to explain the methods of things in exsistence, it then draws very specific conclusions about the origins of those things, in the specifications of an evolutionary theory. In other words it speculates about the possible origins of the conclusions taken from a naturalistic method. It employs this method, then contends at the same time, such is not taking place. Yet we are not allowed in a professional settting to make or draw some of the same conclusions based on very sound principles that have been accepted for centuries.Since those thories expressed from a naturalistic perspective are based partly in conjecture and speculation it would follow that the standards they employ for thmeselves and reject for others is a contradictory way in which to proceed. It is ironic that such a standard is in place. It (NM) includes all the principles it rejects in others and explains to them they are not justified in using such principles and have convinced those in lofty positions that they (NM) are completly justified because the evidence would suggest as much, even if it clearly does not. Its a win win situation for (Naturalistic Methodology) those that accept this method of proceeding.The point is very simple. No one here is asking for any special way of proceeding that is not based in sound, logical reasoning, or for methods that those opposing such methods, dont also employ themselves. Special pleading would only be taking place if we were asking for something that had never been employed for centuries in the first place. I am not stating I want the existence of God added to the standards of history. This very warrented addition would come in the infancy of theory about the existence of anything. If you wish to call that history, then ok. The very sound principle of the existence of God would ofcourse come into play later on when one is deciding the validity or invalidity of a historical context, especially in the context of the scriptures. Your contention that I or others dont want to offer historically or archaeological reliable evidence for the existence of God is a baseless assertion. We are more than happy to accomodate in this connection. Your connetion therefore that we just want him "added", is competley unwarrented.I am refering here to a creator. If you wish to call Vishnu or Zeus (quit borrowing form Dawkins, he is an especially poor apologist as Hank Hendergraph has pointed out) that is your choice. The subsequent evidence will deleniate which diety should be considered as verifiable. The inital point however is, that the existence of a creator is more than reliable and should not be disregarded. Very sound principles of fact gathering have been employed to establish this principle and are not simple additions to bolster a point. If however, "historical science" has themselves changed long standing principles it would follow that I am not making things up to have my and others positions accepted. The point I am making here is that it is just to easily demonstratable from a historical context. You lowered the bar, you changed the verbage, you changed the standards. You then complain that we will not follow the accepted standards, this is borderline silliness. Employing strict standards in the field of history is fine. However, exluding long standing principles that no longer fit into your theories, is not an acceptable practice. Youve got it exacally backwards.Again, employing the same standards of drawing speculative conclusions on say the ideology of evolution, and its and the earths possible origins, then rjecting the same principle in others, is simply contradictory.Brian writes: As I have now adequatley demonstrated, it is yourselves that ignore well established principles and hard work of others in favor of a less than adequate way of proceeding. This is not my "own type of historical enquiry". It rests on the hard work and valid conclusions of well established scholars, phi;losophers, theologians and many other professionals, that you have systematically disregarded in favor a theory that is limited and self-contradictory in principle.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Well, I guess you're free to believe what you want. There is so little danger in anyone finding your arguments persuasive or even rational or sensible that I see little to be gained by rebutting them, so I'll just provide some correct information.Standards of scholarship and the quality of methodologies have steadily improved over time. Science has been the greatest beneficiary, with the rate of progress increasing at the same time that the influence of the supernatural decreased. Its practical real-world results prove that we have today the most effective method in history for figuring out how the universe works.There's a reason the Middle Ages is also called the Dark Ages, and it isn't because a religious dependence upon the supernatural breeds enlightenment. Anyone who believes that a return to methods of the Medieval period or before would improve the advancement of science can demonstrate this simply by outperforming modern science. Any researchers producing superior results by way of alternative methods will rapidly attract scores of new adherents to those methods. No one's stopping anyone from doing this. Go ahead and prove the methods of modern science wrong or misguided by doing better through the abandonment of methodological naturalism.Well, that's enough off-topic stuff. What I guess is clear is that there isn't sufficient agreement about the standards of history to even have a discussion. Your response to characterizations of your evidence as insufficient and uncorroborated is a bewildering claim that we have lowered the bar too much. You need to invest your time in finding multiple independent lines of evidence. Arguing that your poor evidence is actually good evidence isn't going to get very far.--Percy

This is a reply to Brian but is actually an open call to everyone.I'm actually very curious and interested about the history of the middle east/near east (from an amateur level anyways). In the poking around that I have done it is almost impossible to find anything that isn't heavily influenced by the Bible.Here is my question to everyone.Assumption: The Bible does not exist.
What evidence is there for happenings/persons in the middle/near east for the periods covering 2000BC to 1000BC?

1. Code of Hammurabi ~1760BCE
2. Code of Ur-Nammu ~2000BCE
3. Code of Lipit Ishtar ~1875BCE
4. Laws of Eshnunna ~1900BCE
   

That basically covers things like what various middle/near-eastern people understood as far as law and 'human rights'. Other happenings might be gleaned from letters, government records, etc - but I've just finished reading about early Middle Eastern laws/codes so I thought I'd chime in with that.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I agree with the bulk of your post concerning the special privelidges of the methodological naturalism. I agree.But the truism of the creator, in this modern age, isn't a "truism" because of the power of methodo naturalo.This very real blindness, is quite bizarre, for DNA alone is so beyond "spooky" that there is not a term high enough to describe how incredible it is. To state that every miracle tehreafter is and was caused by a natural cause and effect could be classically concluded to be nothing more than wishful thinking.There is no sign at all that anything natural is even remotely capable of answering to the facts, concerning the existence of the simlest cell.

Bertot was already having trouble staying on topic, he doesn't need encouragement.--Percy

it always shows the Bible to be accurate. Just because evidence has not been found does not mean ther is none or it never happened. This is an argument from silence and a fallacy.Edited by Creationist, : No reason given.

historical accuracy.Clay seal connects to Bible - Washington Times