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.
You seem to love making assertions and then refusing to support them. Is this yet another such instance?
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
As I tried to point out, that depends on what you mean by "historical record?"
Folk tale, mythology, legends, fantasy can be historical records. They explain how a people viewed themselves and the world. They can be totally fiction and still be a historical record.
One good example is the Biblical Flood account. It is a historical record because it is a folk tale of a people that they used to help identify themselves. But it is also one that has been show to be 100% false as far as being factually accurate.
While historical records might not be supported by external evidence, to be considered as more than myth there should be some external evidence to support them, and they should not be totally refuted. That is why some of the things mentioned in the post-David Bible appear to factual, many other things such as the Flood, Exodus, Conquest of Canaan have been conclusively shown to be nothing but myth.
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.
Not at all contradictory Buz. You may refer to the Bible as a Historic Record, no one is saying it is not. However if by "Historical Record" you mean something that actually happened, then yes, you must provide the external corroborative material.
Also, it should actually be in the Bible. For example in the past you have mentioned some imagined "Vapor Canopy." Since that is not even in the Bible, it cannot be considered even as Biblical Mythology.
Aslan is not a
Tame Lion
™ Version 4.2