Does A Biblical Historical Record Exist?

Hey Buz,I guess you started this topic based on my suggestion in the other thread. Although not strictly the way I would have framed the discussion, it still contains some valid points worth discussing. If I understand your main point here, I would say (as have others), that "Yes, the Bible contains some historical references." Whether or not these references are completely accurate is another question, however. If a Biblicalist wishes to use those limited references in an argument, then I would say that it would be completely legitimate to do so. At that point, however, the question of the reliability of those references is open; this is what needs to be supported with external - non-Biblical - evidence. Simply assuming the Bible is true because it is the Bible, and demanding everyone else accept that is where the Biblicalists get into trouble.On to your specific questions: I would answer that it depends on what you mean by "Biblical historical record". Thus far I'm not sure you've clarified this enough for me to address succinctly. If you mean the Bible as a whole, then I'd have to say "no". As others have noted, the Bible contains a mix of history, myth, legend, theology, and philosophy. It is partly proscriptive, partly prescriptive, and partly descriptive. Which bits are which really depends on one's interpretation. On the other hand, if you mean to ask only whether the Bible may contain some historical references, then the answer would of course be "yes". "Valid" (and I use the term advisedly) history doesn't have to be 100% accurate to be used as a historical record. I don't think any history is necessarily 100% accurate. However, and I think this is a key point, a document purporting to be "history" must be able to be corroborated by other sources, AND it must be open to revision as new information comes to light. The Bible, unfortunately, doesn't appear to meet either criteria. 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.

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.I'm sure you've done persuasive writing before. State your thesis, provide argument in support of the thesis, address known counterarguments (before your opponent, thus disarming them), and then state the conclusion. That might be a different approach to the usual "the Bible says...". Sure, this seems a reasonable approach. Just be aware that, as PaulK noted, the discussion would then be as to the accuracy of the statement and any evidence provided in support. Again, if it's just the terminology that people object to (I dunno, is there some specific meaning to "historical record" that people think is violated or misused in this context?), then modify the term or use a different one. That would be my suggestion.Hope this helps. Edited by Quetzal, : grammar

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?

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.