Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does A Biblical Historical Record Exist?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 55 (429997)
10-22-2007 11:33 PM


The scrolls, inscriptions and records of ancient events often contained what we call history or historical events. How much of what various sources recorded was accurate is debatable. For example varied versions of some kind of a flood have been found inscribed by nomadic tribes etc. The same goes with other historical records such as Egyptian history. Did the pharoahs who had records recorded by scribes have the whole truth recorded or did they skew the record to bolster their own achievements etc. That is debatable.
Jewish scribes also wrote early scroll manuscripts of history such as the Torah and the Dead Sea Scrolls etc. Today the world knows the various translations of these as scripture. Later Mohammed and Joseph Smith wrote their books which contain what they claimed to be historical data.
America's history books of today differ somewhat from the history books of the early to middle 20th century. Some refer to modern historians as revisionists. Most of our public school books have been revised from older ones so as to be more politically correct or more compatible to the civil rights movement, to emphasise certain aspects pertaining to civil rights, creationism, black history, the Indian wars, founding fathers etc.
I've said all of the above to say that all of the above cited records of history have debatable aspects as to accuracy, including the Biblical record. Like some of the other records, the Biblical record, one of the relatively early types of written records contains certain recorded historical events such as pertaining to the Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian empires, etc. How much of this record is true? That, like the Egyptian records, records of nomadic tribes and all right up to modern history is debatable and the debates go on and on via various means of communication.
Some Christians see the Biblical record as infallible. Others say it's basically true but not totally infallible. Some say there is some true historical information in it and some simply tales. Then we have professed Christians who say it's nearly all myth. I consider that in the Bible pertaining to historical events as basically accurate, allowing for differences due to ancient terminology, recording inaccuracies, etc.
The debate goes on and on and on as to how much of the Biblical record is true as does debate about mid 20th century history, Egyptian history, etc.
EvC Biblicalist creationists have been chastized for referring to the Biblie as a Biblical historical record. Does the Bible contain history? Like all the other souces of history, the Biblical scribes allege to have recorded accuracy. How much is accurate, as is the case with all recorded history is debatable.
1. Does a Biblical historical record exist?
2. Must a historical record be imperically substantiated to be 100% accurate to be regarded as a historical record? If not, what percentage of a record must be imperically substantiated accurate to be regarded as a historical record?
3. Certain books of the OT are nearly all alleged history such as the Chronicals, Kings, Numbers, etc. Must these books be imperically verified before Biblical creationist members are allowed to refer to the Bible as a historical record in discussion and debate?
Coffee House is the preference since this topic is not for the purpose of discussing the Bible perse. Please focus the discussion on the three questions. Thanks.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 10-22-2007 11:42 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 3 by ringo, posted 10-23-2007 12:27 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 10-23-2007 12:56 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 10-23-2007 2:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 10-24-2007 11:03 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 20 by Brian, posted 10-25-2007 5:19 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 53 by imageinvisible, posted 12-06-2007 9:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 54 by sl33w, posted 07-11-2008 8:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 55 (430069)
10-23-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by jar
10-22-2007 11:42 PM


Re: Or to tell the TRUTH
jar writes:
Buzsaw writes:
America's history books of today differ somewhat from the history books of the early to middle 20th century. Some refer to modern historians as revisionists. Most of our public school books have been revised from older ones so as to be more politically correct or more compatible to the civil rights movement, to emphasise certain aspects pertaining to civil rights, creationism, black history, the Indian wars, founding fathers etc.
Jar writes:
I hope you can support that assertion, because it looks like most revisions are to finally tell the truth about what happened.
Please note in the OP that the topic calls for focus on the three questions. We all are aware of revisions in modern history. That was used as an analogy, not intended to be debated in depth. You do agree that revisions have been made since the early to mid 20th century. Having been in school in the 1940s to the 1950s, and having noted the histories of my own children and since, I'm quite aware of the revisions.
jar writes:
Buzsaw writes:
1. Does a Biblical historical record exist
Of course. It is a history of how a people viewed themselves and their world, a Mythology, Folk Tales.
jar writes:
Buzsaw writes:
2. Must a historical record be imperically substantiated to be 100% accurate to be regarded as a historical record? If not, what percentage of a record must be imperically substantiated accurate to be regarded as a historical record?
jar writes:
That depends on whether you are looking to know if what is written is what was originally written or whether it actually reflects what really happened. For the later you MUST have outside corroborating evidence.
In the first box you say it is a historical record based on how a people viewed themselves and the world. In the second box you say it depends on accuracy. Which is it? The question is Must a historical record be 100% accurate to be regarded a historical record
jar writes:
Buzsaw writes:
3. Certain books of the OT are nearly all alleged history such as the Chronicals, Kings, Numbers, etc. Must these books be imperically verified before Biblical creationist members are allowed to refer to the Bible as a historical record in discussion and debate?
Absolutely. They absolutely must have outside corroboration to be considered as accurate history.
Now you're implying that they must be totally accurate before Biblicalist creationists may do what you did, i.e to refer to them as a historical record. You're statements are contradictory. You need to clarify your position. As it stands you yourself stated that it is a historical record of sorts but now you imply that it's ok for you to say so but not for Biblical creationists to regard it as such. Remember, this discussion is not to verify any historical record. It is to discuss what may regarded as a historical record in speech here at EvC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by jar, posted 10-22-2007 11:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 10-23-2007 10:20 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 55 (430232)
10-23-2007 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ringo
10-23-2007 12:27 AM


Historical Record
Ringo writes:
Asking whether or not the Bible is "a historical record" is the wrong approach. You might as well ask if a library is "a historical record".
A library is a building. The Bible is a book containing among other things a significant amount of history, enough to regard it as a historical record when discussing history relative to the book. You can't get around that.
Ringo writes:
Some of it is and some of it isn't. Each part has to be individually compared to outside sources. And even if some parts are corroborated, that in no way validates the parts that are not corroborated.
So, calling the Bible "a historical record" in a debate has no value. Only parts of the Bible corroborated by external sources and pertinent to the particular topic should be deemed "historical".
Regarding it as a historical record has value depending on one's ideology. Certainly it has no value to you but does to fundamental Biblical creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ringo, posted 10-23-2007 12:27 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 10-24-2007 12:26 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 55 (430391)
10-24-2007 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Quetzal
10-24-2007 11:03 AM


Speech Is The Issue Here.
Quetzal writes:
In the sense that I noted above in my opening paragraph, I have absolutely no problem if anyone wants to use the (obvious) historical bits contained in the Bible in a discussion. HOWEVER, and I really want to emphasize this point again, using them as such throws the door open to an examination of the accuracy and, erm, historicity of the claims. If there is some evidence contrary to the statements/claims/history mentioned, then I would say that you need external verification. You cannot simply assume the Bible - even the historical bits - are true without further examination. This goes for ANYTHING claiming to be history, not just the Bible.
Use it judiciously, and be aware that skeptics are going to question it so you'll need some additional references, and you should be okay.
Thanks for showing up. Quetzal. I was hoping you would sooner or later.
1. Actually there is an alleged history of Judaism from Abraham up to Jesus the Christ as well as a significant amount of alleged world history. Regardless of how much can be verified, it is a Biblical record of alleged history. This is why I use terms like, according to the Biblical historical record, thus & thus. However when I as much as say such a thing, I get flak for saying it.
2. So far as supporting, verification and substantiating, that's what I/we attempt to do when applying the term. For example one might be debating the Exodus history. In attempting to make a case, one might say, "According to the Biblical Historical Record, Mt Sinai is in Arabia." The usage of the term here is simply to state what the Bible has to say as to where Mt Sinai is suppose to be. Speaking the term would not be the evidence perse. The evidence comes from the physical observation of the specific mountain in Arabia near the Nuweiba sandbar and the possible evidence of chariot debris and near a rock which fits the description of the Biblical account.
So what this debate is about is to show good reason why we think we should be allowed to speak the term according to the Biblical historical record. That's my whole purpose for this thread. It's little or nothing about evidence perse.
It is assumed by all that if we engage in debate, attempts to produce evidence is required. We needn't be continually reminded about that. We know it to be the case.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 10-24-2007 11:03 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2007 1:34 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 10-25-2007 10:18 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 55 (430438)
10-25-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Quetzal
10-25-2007 10:18 AM


Re: Speech Is The Issue Here.
Quetzel writes:
Well, if it's just a question of semantics, I'd say you could get away with simply shortening the objectionable phrase. Say, "according to the Bible, thus & thus". Then, however, you'll need to immediately follow it with "this is supported by these documents, or this archeological find, or some such. Or even reverse the order: "this document says thus & so, which corresponds to the Bible where it describes...". Or words to that effect. Be prepared, of course, to argue the case.
1. No. It's not just about the semantics. It's about the freedom to do what everyone else is allowed, to specify in speech to what we are referring. The Bible has a lot in in including a historical record. We want the right to refer to the historical record within the Bible, which is a collection of 66 books, some of which are a historical record, thus the term, Biblical historical record.
2. There is laced into non-historical books such as Isaiah, Psalms and the NT some aspects of history either directly or indirectly relative to the historical books as well. For example the statement that Sinai is in Arabia is in the NT but only implied in the OT account itself, since the OT has Sinai in the region of Moses's father in law's home which is in Arabia. Research and exploration have shown this to have significant support.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Quetzal, posted 10-25-2007 10:18 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2007 2:06 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 19 by Quetzal, posted 10-25-2007 4:24 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 55 (430525)
10-25-2007 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
10-25-2007 2:06 PM


Re: Speech Is The Issue Here.
PaulK writes:
Actually I'll agree that Isaiah contains some material that could be fairly categorised as a "historical record".
But back to the original issue. The vapour canopy is not part of the Bible's "historical record". It isn't in the Bible - it's just speculation. And the parts of the Bible it is based on is more fairly characterised as myth, not any form of history.
In past discussions about this, it has been shown why many creationists believe a canopy is implied in the Genesis record of origins. Admittedly however the further back we go, the less we can catagorize as historical.
We aren't as adamant about a few thousand years back as secular mainline science is about billions of years back.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 10-25-2007 2:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2007 2:08 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 28 by ramoss, posted 10-26-2007 9:11 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 55 (430535)
10-25-2007 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Brian
10-25-2007 5:19 PM


Biblical Record Not Blind Faith Based
I think the problem Buz is that you and others appear to think that just because something is in the Bible it automatically becomes true, but it doesn’t.
This is just not so. Nothing about blind faith and automatic acceptance keeps knowledgeable Biblicalists into Biblical ideology.
Yes there are problematic areas which leave questions just as with any ideology, but when you add up all of the verifiable corroborative data in the record and add that to the social and spiritual benefits the book affords, blind faith as you have implied in your statement is just not what motivates us. Most folks who opt out of the Bible have never really been into it in depth enough to put together all of the corroborative reasons to appreciate it's worth historically and otherwise.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Brian, posted 10-25-2007 5:19 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 10-25-2007 10:49 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 29 by Brian, posted 10-26-2007 10:20 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 55 (430541)
10-25-2007 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
10-25-2007 10:49 PM


Re: Biblical Record Not Blind Faith Based
jar writes:
But simply claiming "verifiable corroborative data" means nothing, you need to present the evidence for examination. In addition, "the social and spiritual benefits the book affords" add nothing to support the validity of any claims.
The only reason I meantioned these is that those of us who have experienced these regard them as being corroborative to the physical and historical pertaining to the record. True, it adds nothing tangible to the validity of the claims.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 10-25-2007 10:49 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 10-25-2007 11:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 55 (430545)
10-25-2007 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Quetzal
10-25-2007 4:24 PM


Re: Speech Is The Issue Here.
Quetzel writes:
Is there some specific meaning to "historical record" that equates to "written in stone and unquestionable" in your mind?
It doesn't have to be equated to "written in stone and unquestionable" to qualify as a historical record, so I don't see why that is relevant. Even if a historical record is known to have errors in it, it nevertheless remains a historical record of sorts, albeit perhaps considered by those who regard it as erroneous a poor one.
Quetzel writes:
However, again, simply because the Bible makes a claim does not necessarily mean the claim is accurate.
But that is true with any historical record. Tell it to the revisionist historians as well as perhaps in some cases the older scribes and historians, all of which may have been influenced to a more or less degree ideologically, culturally and politically.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Quetzal, posted 10-25-2007 4:24 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Quetzal, posted 10-26-2007 10:39 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 55 (430689)
10-26-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
10-26-2007 2:08 AM


Re: Speech Is The Issue Here.
PaulK writes:
Nevertheless the Bible does not recrod any such canopy, and it is not even clearly implied.
Surely you are aware of how a terrarium works, needing no watering or rain etc. The Genesis record clearly depicts a terrarium type planet with enough of a canopy in the atmosphere to collect the evaporated moisture which would in turn fall as a mist back to the earth. According to clear Genesis implications, there being no rainbow, a mist type rain watered the earth. The length of life claimed and the evidence of large animals etc also imply a super climate before the flood.
This thread is not about this perse so I don't want to get into a discussion on this. You keep on keeping on charging that I never lend reason for these things. I'm calling you on it here and that is the only reason I went into it to the extent that I did.
PaulK writes:
To take just one example you keep referring to the idea that the alleged pre-Flood atmosphere somehow affected radiometric dates. But you keep evading the question when anyone asks you to even explain how it could possibly produce the results that have been observed. If any scientist acted like that we'd call him a crackpot.
Go figure. You should be science apprised enough to know that a radically different atmosphere would effect dating methodology designed for present day conditions if such an atmosphere existed.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 10-26-2007 2:08 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 10-26-2007 7:58 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 34 by DrJones*, posted 10-26-2007 8:03 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 10-26-2007 8:33 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 42 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2007 5:53 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 55 (430692)
10-26-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Quetzal
10-26-2007 10:39 AM


Re: Speech Is The Issue Here.
Quetzel writes:
If you're going to use the Bible in that context, then you have to be prepared to substantiate it. Most Bible-believers aren't willing to do that. Maybe that's where the issue resides?
That's the only problem I see, given you agree with most of my points. The problem with the above is that no matter what any of us Biblical fundamentalists produce in debate for substantiating our case we are accused of not substantiating. Of course the majority view has the bully pulpit here. Case in point is the last exchange with PaulK. He will likely go on and on and on making he same demeaning unsubstantiated charges as is his MO, and of course his friends all listen to them and agree, including some other admins.
Evolutionists, imo, need to begin understanding that if they want anyone to debate they should expect the minority viewpoints to be aired and tolerate them expressing their viewpoints as they see them. But no, until we agree with mainline science, we will likely never be tolerated to the point that good ID creationist debaters will feel comfortable at this site.
Having said the above, Quetzel, I respect you a great deal in that you are willing to agree about valid points presented. It would be great if more were as objective and understanding as you are in this regard.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Quetzal, posted 10-26-2007 10:39 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2007 6:08 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 55 (430695)
10-26-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
10-26-2007 7:58 PM


Re: When corroboration is just silly.
jar writes:
The problem Buz is you mention things that are simply so silly that most folks BullShit detectors go off the scale.
You say stuff like "According to clear Genesis implications, there being no rainbow, a mist type rain watered the earth. " which is so totally absurd that it is beyond being laughable.
Instead of a "mist type rain' being indicative of no rainbow, a mist assures a rainbow even when it is NOT raining. Take a ride on Queen of the Mists sometime.
Jar, you're another great example of what I just described. The Maid Of the Mist rainbow was due to bright sunshine above which would not have been the case before the flood, the sun being very dim due to a very large atmosphere due to the heat expanding the canopy higher up than what we have today. I've covered this elsewhere in the past.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 10-26-2007 7:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 10-26-2007 8:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 55 (430704)
10-26-2007 9:02 PM


OP writes:
1. Does a Biblical historical record exist?
2. Must a historical record be imperically substantiated to be 100% accurate to be regarded as a historical record? If not, what percentage of a record must be imperically substantiated accurate to be regarded as a historical record?
3. Certain books of the OT are nearly all alleged history such as the Chronicals, Kings, Numbers, etc. Must these books be imperically verified before Biblical creationist members are allowed to refer to the Bible as a historical record in discussion and debate?
......... this topic is not for the purpose of discussing the Bible perse. Please focus the discussion on the three questions. Thanks.
I see I need to remind some participants what the topic is. the above is directly from the OP.
The only reason I posted what I did about preflood is to counter the claims that I/we fundamentalists do not attemp to substantiate claims. It is not expected of the majority science view to agree with my statements. If you wish to debate/discuss the canopy, etc in debth, please take it where it belongs. Thanks.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by DrJones*, posted 10-26-2007 9:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 41 by jar, posted 10-26-2007 9:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 55 (430706)
10-26-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by sidelined
10-26-2007 8:33 PM


Re: Speech Is The Issue Here.
Sidelined, elsewhere I addressed the river problem sometime during summer. I'm not sure where but I did soundly substantiate the possibility of preflood rivers in a pre-flood earth.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 10-26-2007 8:33 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024