Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 6:00 AM
23 online now:
(23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
234Next
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 responded
 Message 3 by ringo, posted 10-23-2007 12:27 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 10-23-2007 12:56 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 10-23-2007 2:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Quetzal, posted 10-24-2007 11:03 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 20 by Brian, posted 10-25-2007 5:19 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 53 by imageinvisible, posted 12-06-2007 9:26 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 54 by sl33w, posted 07-11-2008 8:36 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 2 of 55 (430001)
10-22-2007 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
10-22-2007 11:33 PM


Or to tell the TRUTH
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 hope you can support that assertion, because it looks like most revisions are to finally tell the truth about what happened.

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.

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?

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.

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.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2007 11:33 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 10-23-2007 10:01 AM jar has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 3 of 55 (430008)
10-23-2007 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
10-22-2007 11:33 PM


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?

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".

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".


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2007 11:33 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 10-23-2007 11:40 PM ringo has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 55 (430015)
10-23-2007 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
10-22-2007 11:33 PM


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.

everyone is biased. people write history in their own favor.

Jewish scribes also wrote early scroll manuscripts of history such as the Torah and the Dead Sea Scrolls etc.

there's a lot wrong with this statement. to start with, the torah is contained within the dead sea scrolls -- the DSS are merely a collection of physical documents, including all of the torah and iirc, all of the nevi'im and a fair portion of the kethuvim, and a number of other documents as well.

second, the torah isn't exactly a manuscript of history. it is tradition, folk tales, etiologies. there are history texts contained within the bible -- look to the book of kings.

Later Mohammed and Joseph Smith wrote their books which contain what they claimed to be historical data.

i haven't the qu'ran, but i still suspect your claim as to its contents. is there anything in the qu'ran that even claims to be historical data? smith... might be another topic.

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?

as near as we can tell, soon after the reigns of david and solomon, much of the biblical story becomes far less debatable. some quibbles here and there, and some interesting asides about author bias -- but most of the wars documented in kings seem to have happened. the exile in babylon seems to have happened. the persian conquest of babylon, and cyrus allowing the jews to return home seems to have happened. the building of the second temple seems to have happened.

granted, it's not as cool as worldwide floods and mass exoduses from egypt filled with miracles -- but those parts seem to actually be history, told in a historical way.

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.

the problem seems to be that when people talk about "the bible" the actually mean only a few specific texts: genesis, the first half of exodus, maybe isaiah, the gospels, and the epistles of paul. very rarely does anything else even get talked about. i pulled a quote from esther today, and was surprised for a second. i can't remember the last time anyone here even talked about, much less quoted esther.

but because there is so much focus on books like genesis in the EvC debate, an argument about how genesis is myth and not history can quickly get misconstrued into "the whole bible was simply made up." especially considering the fundamentalist tendency to assume that the bible is one continuous text, all of the same content and style.

The debate goes on and on and on as to how much of the Biblical record is true

if you'd like my frank opinion, i actually don't care how much is true. if you ask me, i'll point out the bits that probably are, and the bits that probably aren't, and the bits that are simply matters of faith. but really, it doesn't matter to me. i'm more interested in an honest appraisal of what the text says, what the authors mean to show, and what can be gathered (either academically or morally) from the text. question about the accuracy of the text just... distract from the real point, in my opinion.

1. Does a Biblical historical record exist?

yes, the books of kings and chronicles seem to be academic histories, for the most part.

2. Must a historical record be imperically substantiated to be 100% accurate to be regarded as a historical record?

no. all history is innaccurate to some degree.

If not, what percentage of a record must be imperically substantiated accurate to be regarded as a historical record?

frankly, it could be 0% true for all i care. "history" is a style, and a form, not a matter of accuracy. it's a form that lends itself to reporting real-world events in a mostly-true kind of way, but it need not be so. you could be reading a history of the star trek universe, and maybe 95% of it is completely and entirely fictional. but it's still a history.

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?

one can, and does, refer to certain books of the bible as historical sources for the ancient near east, thought often with a disclaimer elaborating on the particular biases present in the text.

the fact of the matter is that the entire bible is not simply one book, and cannot be treated as such. some books are pretty close to being histories, some books are pretty far. some or histories of tradition. some are just poetry. the bible is not any one thing. it is MANY things. saying that "the bible is a historical record" is a clear way to tell people in a debate that you are a fundamentalist and have not considered the contents of the bible very carefully.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2007 11:33 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15085
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 5 of 55 (430030)
10-23-2007 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
10-22-2007 11:33 PM


Firstly, none of the Bible is a modern history. All of it is highly partisan and must be carefully filtered for bias.

Secondly, the current mainstream view of archaeologists is that there is little to no history -in so far as it affects the archaeological record - in any book of the Bible prior to Judges. There was no recent creation of all life, including humans. No Flood. No Exodus.

Although Judges has some historical basis, it too is full of legend. I suspect you need to get to 2 Kings before you find much reliable information and even that is heavily biased.

Since none of the Bible is reliable history in the modern sense it will depend very much on what you are claiming and what book it comes from. If it is a relatively mundane claim, which is unlikely to e affected by authorial bias and from one of the less unreliable books you will need little if any corroboration. If it requires miracles you will always need corroborating evidence (and high-quality evidence at that). And you will always need to show that it really IS in the Bible. If you try to pass off creationist speculations like the vapour canopy as Biblical expect to get mauled.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2007 11:33 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
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 responded

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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30997
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 7 of 55 (430075)
10-23-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
10-23-2007 10:01 AM


Re: Or to tell the TRUTH
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 10-23-2007 10:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
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 responded

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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16681
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 9 of 55 (430242)
10-24-2007 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Buzsaw
10-23-2007 11:40 PM


Re: Historical Record
Buzsaw writes:

A library is a building. The Bible is a book...

The Bible is a library. The 66 (or so) books ought to be your first clue.

Some of it is history, though that doesn't necessarily mean that it's an accurate account. And much of it isn't history at all, doesn't even pretend to be history. The Psalms and Proverbs contain little or nothing that could be called history. The epistles contain next to no history. Even the gospels are more biography than history.

Which is why I say it's useless to describe the Bible as "a historical record". It's a record of many things, only a few of them even purported to be history.

Regarding it as a historical record has value depending on one's ideology.

I don't have an ideology.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Buzsaw, posted 10-23-2007 11:40 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 10-24-2007 12:33 AM ringo has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 10 of 55 (430244)
10-24-2007 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ringo
10-24-2007 12:26 AM


ideology
Buzsaw writes:

Regarding it as a historical record has value depending on one's ideology.

I don't have an ideology.

technically, buz's point stands. it does depend on your ideology. those without one will regard the bible in a natural, rational sense -- as a collection of many texts. some of which are history, some of which are not. but those with a particular ideology will disagree. their ideology gets in the way of the obvious -- they see the bible as all one book, by god, of all the same content and style and voice and function.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 10-24-2007 12:26 AM ringo has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3884
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 11 of 55 (430251)
10-24-2007 12:58 AM


Thread moved here from the Suggestions and Questions forum.

Buzsaw, in message 1 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?

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.

Apparently this topic accidently got started in "Suggestions and Questions" rather than in "Proposed New Topics".

As I see it, it is way too Bible oriented to go to the "Coffee House". Thus I'm plugging it into "The Bible:..." forum.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added post move comments.


    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 12 of 55 (430297)
10-24-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
10-22-2007 11:33 PM


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.

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.

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:

1. Does a Biblical historical record exist?

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".

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?

"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.

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?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 10-22-2007 11:33 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2007 11:54 PM Quetzal has responded

  
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 responded

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15085
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 14 of 55 (430401)
10-25-2007 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
10-24-2007 11:54 PM


Re: Speech Is The Issue Here.
quote:

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.

So let us be clear. Do you just want to say that it is something you BELIEVE to be a historical record, or do you want to claim that it IS a historical record.

quote:

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.

Well the "sandbar" can't be physical evidence because it doesn't exist. And the Nuweiba site fails to fit the Biblical evidence because it is in the wrong place. And there is other evidence that indicates that the Exodus account is unreliable, late, and almost certainly ahistorical. It is not even true that the Bible claims that Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia - that is an inference drawn more from the alleged evidence, than from the Biblical account itself.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2007 11:54 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Lysimachus, posted 11-10-2007 2:35 PM PaulK has responded

    
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 15 of 55 (430434)
10-25-2007 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
10-24-2007 11:54 PM


Re: Speech Is The Issue Here.
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.

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...".

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 10-24-2007 11:54 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Buzsaw, posted 10-25-2007 10:51 AM Quetzal has responded

  
1
234Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019