Does A Biblical Historical Record Exist?

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.

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.

it sure does!...copied, word for word, from the book of kings.

---

Hi Buz, Okay, I guess I'm still confused. I've already explicitly stated that using the bits of the Bible that constitute history is valid. I'm not sure where anyone is saying that you can't (could you provide a f'rinstance?). I merely reiterate that using the Bible in this context throws the floor open to challenging the specifics, and that additional (external) corroboration would be then required to determine the accuracy and validity of the text. Is there some specific meaning to "historical record" that equates to "written in stone and unquestionable" in your mind? If that's the problem then I can see why there is difficulty. No purportedly historical reference is immune to challenge. 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? Okay, if that is indeed the case. I'm not the person you want to argue that with. However, again, simply because the Bible makes a claim does not necessarily mean the claim is accurate. You'd have to be prepared to substantiate the claim with other sources/argument/evidence if you're going to use the text as a historical reference.Maybe I'm still missing your point?

Personally, I think the problem about the Bible and history is that many people are not really aware what history is.I always keep in mind that history is NOT what happened in the past, it is what we are told happened in the past. History is the words on the page, NOT the event. The past is gone forever, and ALL history is a construct of the human mind.Here is where we hit a problem between historians and non-historians, or people who know what history is and those that don’t.I am of the mind that the entire Bible is an historical record, however, remember that because all histories are constructed in the human mind, we need to have external evidence to gauge the accuracy of the claims made by this historical record. For example, to claim that the Israelites left Egypt in the mid 15th century BCE, you would need some external evidence to support this. Now, we don’t have ANY evidence outside of the Bible that this event happened, forget the excuses that Egyptians didn’t record defeats, or that evidence just haven’t been found yet, the state of things as we speak is that there is NO external evidence to support the mass Exodus of Israelites form Egypt in the mid 15th century BCE.With this in mind we can acknowledge that this claim in the Book of Exodus is historical, inasmuch as it is a narrative about a past event, but it is a false history, it didn’t happen.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. The Bible should not be treated any differently from any other ancient text, and just like any other ancient text the authors of the Bible were as likely to embellish or make up an event as anyone else. The authors of the Bible were as likely to produce a piece of propaganda as any other ancient people, and this is why we need to use external evidence to check the veracity of the history in the Bible.If you wish to argue that the Bible can be used to support an historical event that has no other support outside of the Bible then you are back to the world of circular reasoning.I think everyone is aware that there are many events in the Bible that have external evidence to support them, the Moabite stone is a good example of this. But the evidence for the books of Genesis through to Judges is practically non-existent, and furthermore, there are vast storehouses of evidence to contradict what the Bible claims happened in these books.So, the Bible is an historical record, but it contains a great deal of false history, and some reliable as well of course.I would stress, as William Albright and many other stress, that we MUST have external evidence for any alleged historical event, whether in the Bible or any other text. Without that evidence we cannot simply accept the texts as accurate just because it happens to be in a book we think is special in some way.

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 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.

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.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

It really doesn't matter what YOU think is corroborative, it has to be something that anyone can see is corroborative. "The social and spiritual benefits the book affords" simply are worthless as corroboration. They are simply Blind Faith and by bringing them up you are admitting that your only support is Blind Faith Based.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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. 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Nevertheless the Bible does not recrod any such canopy, and it is not even clearly implied.

quote:

---

We aren't as adamant about a few thousand years back as secular mainline science is about billions of years back.

---

By which you mean that you take completely crazy speculations as adamantly as science takes plausible suggestions with reasonable evidential support.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.

The reason that science is more adament about what happened billions of years back vrs the historical record (not just the bible) of several thousand years back is this little thing known as 'evidence'. When major events happened millions and billions of years ago, they leave traces
that can be figured out. History often does not. It CAN.. such as tombs, ruined cities, villages, and battle fields. But, often not human details.

I would say that it is more to do with naivety about what historical verification is rather than blind faith, and the rest of your post just supports my stance. 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 See this is where I think the naivety comes in. To me this sounds as if you are saying that if some events in the Bible can be verified then this automatically means that everything else is true as well. This is obviously untrue, especially so with the Bible as it is a collection of texts and not the one book. But finding some verified events for one part of a book doesnt mean anything else in it is true. 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.As you know this has no bearing on historical accuracy of a text. I would say that the oppsite is true. It is only the people who havent studied the Bible to a great depth and havent studied ancient history that think the Bible is completely reliable.

Buz,I don't see where you answered my questions. So far, I have been agreeing with you as far as I can tell. My problem is I can't tell from what you've said to me where the, erm, problem is. Let me reiterate the two questions I asked, and hopefully you can clear up my confusion:1. Is there some specific meaning to "historical record" that equates to "written in stone and unquestionable" in your mind? You appeared to not like my suggestion to just say "history" rather than "historical record". I have agreed - several times - that using the Bible as a source is legitimate, as long as the facts referenced can be substantiated from external sources. You said:

quote:

---

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.

---

I AGREE with you for crying out loud. I have stated so repeatedly. So I'm still not getting what the problem you're trying to address might be.2. Please, pretty please, define your point for me. I really, truly, honestly don't understand the problem, since I have essentially agreed with you that the histories contained in the Bible are legitimate to use in a discussion - with the caveat that they are open to be examined like any other history.