Biblical Historicity

[Sum1sgruj]

No, you've just decided there isn't any evidence of stuff that happened so long ago, despite the fact that there is, and we've been able to discover things that happened billions of years even before the events in the bible happened.

Whether or not you think there's any evidence for anything is not relevant. Whether or not the evidence exists is.

Evidence that has been found has not offered every event in history, has it? In fact, it leaves a lot of it open to inquiry.

That's a non sequitur. Just because the bible can offer a fairytale story that involves the Jews doesn't mean it has anything to say about how Jews actually became a nation, and just because people choose to believe the stories about the Jews in the bible and choose to persecute Jews based off of it doesn't mean any of it as told by the bible actually happened

Who says it is fairytale in it's historical context? If it is fairy tale, then other historical documents are subject to the same. Let's not forget that these books were written by people of these eras. It's one thing to say the divine concepts are false, but the history?

And by the way, anyone who persecutes Jews based off of what some book tells them without bothering to find out if any of it is credible or not is being blatantly ignorant.

The Jews have been persecuted throughout history. Their religion has never been a direct cause to my knowledge. Their slavery in Egypt, which is fact, the rise of their nation and the eventual declination when the Romans took control of them before Christ, and the Holocaust. I won't pretend to know the complete history, but you can see why an exodus seems pretty plausible. How did they go from slaves to a nation? Surely, when Egypt was ransacked, they would have just transferred as slaves or wiped out as well.

The whole notion of deciding what to take from the bible as being true and what shouldn't be true is simply just cherry picking as I alluded to earlier. You would have to explain why or how you know that some of the things from the bible are historically accurate, and why other things (existence of god, Jesus miracles, and other acts of god) aren't historically accurate, and why that doesn't in any way mean the bible isn't historically accurate. Because there are better written historical accounts in general that don't talk about irrelevant stuff that didn't happen; the author(s) don't dwell on it for too long, or it's rather obvious when they're doing it, and they're usually much more consistent. And if someone can produce such a work, why is there any reason to believe that the bible, which consists of none of these traits, contains any historical accuracy?

Historical accuracy isn't necessarily subject to the divine concepts. Indeed, I could say that it was God's fist that struck Japan in WW2, and there is nothing to say otherwise with uneducated people. But if I said that Japan was never struck, it would ring bells.

 

[der Astronom]

Evidence that has been found has not offered
every event in history, has it? In fact, it leaves a lot of it open to
inquiry.

And why would you expect it to? Evidence provides us clues for
specific things that may have happened in the past. It provides us
with concrete details of something that did happen, which is certainly
better than speculation. I won't claim that it helps explain
everything that happened in the past, but it helps explain what we do
know happened. If we lack evidence for something, one cannot say
anything about it. But claiming you don't know something in lack of
evidence is different from saying we can't ever know anything ever
because you don't expect the evidence to exist.

Who says it is fairytale in it's historical context? If it is fairy
tale, then other historical documents are subject to the same. Let's
not forget that these books were written by people of these eras. It's
one thing to say the divine concepts are false, but the
history?

And I claim they are false based on our current understanding of
science and primary sources from other historical accounts which have
been verified. However, I'm not talking about these other documents;
the only thing under the microscope right now is the bible. So please do explain why you think the bible isn't a fairytale, if you think it isn't, and why you consider it to be an accurate source of history.

The Jews have been persecuted throughout history. Their religion has
never been a direct cause to my knowledge. Their slavery in Egypt,
which is fact, the rise of their nation and the eventual declination
when the Romans took control of them before Christ, and the Holocaust.
I won't pretend to know the complete history, but you can see why an
exodus seems pretty plausible. How did they go from slaves to a
nation? Surely, when Egypt was ransacked, they would have just
transferred as slaves or wiped out as well.

That these events happen to agree, if they do, is due to the fact that the bible just happens to agree with a few historical documents. They don't agree on the supernatural details though. There's actually a lot of inconsistency regarding those details because scribes can't seem to describe them consistently (not to mention heavy editing of the bible throughout the centuries). Just because the bible happens to explain how Jews have their own nation doesn't mean the rest of the bible is historically accurate. A lot of video games, movies, anime and other stories, for example, build off of factually based ideas, including science and/or history, but that doesn't mean they're historically accurate either; authors and artists often twist their interpretation of their work by adding unnatural details or by altering the events themselves.

Historical accuracy isn't necessarily subject to the divine concepts.
Indeed, I could say that it was God's fist that struck Japan in WW2,
and there is nothing to say otherwise with uneducated people. But if I
said that Japan was never struck, it would ring bells.

And that's my point though; you can't assume that the bible is historically accurate, especially because we don't know anything that happened then without evidence, and because these divine concepts are historically inaccurate, not because they sound weird to someone living in this day and age, but because they are inconsistent with other historical artifacts and science. So if you think there's a reason why the bible has to be historically accurate (as opposed to let's see if it is), please explain it.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

And that's my point though; you can't assume that the bible is historically accurate, especially because we don't know anything that happened then without evidence, and because these divine concepts are historically inaccurate, not because they sound weird to someone living in this day and age, but because they are inconsistent with other historical artifacts and science. So if you think there's a reason why the bible has to be historically accurate (as opposed to let's see if it is), please explain it.

Historical accuracy isn't necessarily subject to the divine concepts.
Indeed, I could say that it was God's fist that struck Japan in WW2,
and there is nothing to say otherwise with uneducated people. But if I
said that Japan was never struck, it would ring bells.

whether they were educated or not because they were of those times. I guess the point I'm making is that people back then, however gullible, would have still been aware of the relatively closer historical events of their era.
The OT was written only 300 years after Moses, which would only be 420 years from Moses birth, let alone when the exodus actually happened.

My aim isn't to say the seas split, but rather that the Jews split from Egypt, or that an angel burned Sodom to ashes, but rather the Jews went ape%$#.

Which is quite the baddassness of the OT. Fugitives in the desolate lands of robbers and marauders who get '300' on cities they deem evil.

 

[der Astronom]

whether they were educated or not because they were of those times. I guess the point I'm making is that people back then, however gullible, would have still been aware of the relatively closer historical events of their era.
The OT was written only 300 years after Moses, which would only be 420 years from Moses birth, let alone when the exodus actually happened.

Okay, but I wouldn't consider that historically accurate enough because the people who recorded the stuff weren't actually alive when the events happened; it wouldn't be any better than the speculation we get now, which we are actually reconstructing from other evidence. In other words, scribes who say they saw Jesus doing something when they wrote their accounts at least a hundred years after he died are not accountable, and they might well be liars; they are not writing anything we consider to be a primary source.

My aim isn't to say the seas split, but rather that the Jews split from Egypt, or that an angel burned Sodom to ashes, but rather the Jews went ape%$#.

Which is quite the baddassness of the OT. Fugitives in the desolate lands of robbers and marauders who get '300' on cities they deem evil.

Okay, but are you basing this on the bible because you hold it to be historically accurate, or are you basing this on the fact that the bible happens to agree with other historical evidence? Do you believe the Kingdom of David and Solomon really disappeared without a trace as it is stated in the bible, despite the fact that there are ruins all around Egypt?

 

[bearsfwd]

Haha. You're mixing something up here. I never said atheists "can't" be responsible, I just said they have no reason to be. There are many atheists that live "good" lives, but has any atheist led a perfect life? According to the Bible, without payment for your sins, Christ, you can't make it to heaven. Unless you're perfect. It's in our nature to be both good and bad. That's why you see hardened criminals that love their daughters, or good, honest people who one day flip shit and shoot up a school.

You don't need God to be moral, you need God to be perfect. Morality was etched into you at birth, but so was evil. We're all doomed if we don't have some kind of salvation. This is all assuming heaven/hell exist. If not, it doesn't matter anyway. I choose to assume they do because without them it makes no sense whatsoever to be a good person, save for the obvious ramifications.

The better question would be has EVERY Christian lived a perfect life? I seriously doubt that.

If God makes you perfect, then you are basically telling me that people sitting in jail right now who believe in God are perfect. I call bullshit. And if you think that after killing people (or whatever other heinous crime they committed), if they go and confess their sin, then they are OK, there is something wrong.

Besides, haven't you ever heard the saying "nobody's perfect"? If all Christians are supposedly perfect, then wouldn't they realize that bickering with the other religions makes them look moronic?

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Okay, but I wouldn't consider that historically accurate enough because the people who recorded the stuff weren't actually alive when the events happened; it wouldn't be any better than the speculation we get now, which we are actually reconstructing from other evidence. In other words, scribes who say they saw Jesus doing something when they wrote their accounts at least a hundred years after he died are not accountable, and they might well be liars; they are not writing anything we consider to be a primary source.

See, we know plenty about history 400 years ago. We know that it is isn't filled with divine input because everything is heavily documented.
Back then, one could add quite a few divine things, and perhaps exaggerate, but the strict historical context would have been noticed by a lot of people very quickly in those times. It had to have some factual value for people to take it seriously.

Okay, but are you basing this on the bible because you hold it to be historically accurate, or are you basing this on the fact that the bible happens to agree with other historical evidence? Do you believe the Kingdom of David and Solomon really disappeared without a trace as it is stated in the bible, despite the fact that there are ruins all around Egypt?

There are a few books that are no longer in most common Bibles, like the Maccabees. They were canonized originally with the other books when the Bible was put together after Christ, but Protestants deemed them unnecessary. They further fill in the gaps between Solomon and many centuries later to Roman expansion right before Christ.

What the significance is to the kingdoms disappearance, I don't know. It could be literal or metaphorical. But the idea is that they existed.

It's the kings themselves they can't find, or at least identify if they have, to my knowledge. Don't hold me to it though.

 

[CassinoChips]

See, we know plenty about history 400 years ago. We know that it is isn't filled with divine input because everything is heavily documented.

Comparing now to Biblical times is a world apart. Quite literally. Our era may be heavily documented, but theirs certainly wasn't. Records-keeping and historical documentation was still a new thing, and they didn't have the means to truly preserve works for long periods of time. You simply can't say that because we can keep records today (and in 1711), that they could keep records then. It doesn't wash.

Back then, one could add quite a few divine things, and perhaps exaggerate, but the strict historical context would have been noticed by a lot of people very quickly in those times.

I think you're making an assumption that common people understood historical context in the first place. I'd wager that in most cases, they didn't. Mainly because they probably didn't care, unless it had to do with them directly.

It had to have some factual value for people to take it seriously.

Then explain Scientology.

There are a few books that are no longer in most common Bibles, like the Maccabees. They were canonized originally with the other books when the Bible was put together after Christ, but Protestants deemed them unnecessary. They further fill in the gaps between Solomon and many centuries later to Roman expansion right before Christ.

Not to be flip, but the best lies are based in truth. It's like writing historical fiction. I can get all the landmarks and people correct, and perhaps even some of their interaction will remain true. But if I write that the characters went left when they actually went right, it becomes fiction. On top that, my writing of something that took place 400 years ago can never be considered historically accurate, unless it is based off writings that came out of that time period. Unless I have other evidence to corroborate, it's just me writing and hoping it sticks.

What the significance is to the kingdoms disappearance, I don't know. It could be literal or metaphorical. But the idea is that they existed.

If it's literal, the Bible invalidates itself as a historical document, because it shows itself to be incorrect.

If it's metaphorical, the Bible invalidates itself as a historical document, and becomes a philosophical document, because History doesn't work in metaphors.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

The way I look at it, certain things are going to get lost in history to some extent or another. I personally believe much of the biblical history, just on account of that lying on the history seems more like conspiracy than uneducated bliss.
Th holy texts are after all pieces oh history themselves and there were largely no historians that recorded anything in those times. Of course nothing in it's entirety is going to be flawless.
Here's how I think of the whole accuracy thing- there is no hard evidence, but that is no reason to dismiss it all as fairy tale, because one wouldn't expect to find much evidence anyways. Also, the Bible doesn't necessarily go without merit.
http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html

 

[der Astronom]

The way I look at it, certain things are going to get lost in history to some extent or another. I personally believe much of the biblical history, just on account of that lying on the history seems more like conspiracy than uneducated bliss.

And that's wishful thinking. Wanting something to be uneducated bliss rather than conspiracy has nothing to do with the true intentions of the authors of those accounts. It's the exact same reason nobody really knows why they wrote the bible in the first place, and why several different interpretations are possible.

Th holy texts are after all pieces oh history themselves and there were largely no historians that recorded anything in those times. Of course nothing in it's entirety is going to be flawless.

Actually, claiming that the bible is the only artifact from back then doesn't mean it even is correct; even if you think it is (and I don't agree with you there), that doesn't make it correct, and if it isn't, it just means we don't know what happened.

Here's how I think of the whole accuracy thing- there is no hard evidence, but that is no reason to dismiss it all as fairy tale, because one wouldn't expect to find much evidence anyways. Also, the Bible doesn't necessarily go without merit.
http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q9_historical_proof_bible.html

Well, I'm dismissing it as being untrue until better evidence comes along. The fact is, there's more than enough ambiguous metaphors, contradictions and other absurdities in the bible that it's enough to question whether or not any of it is historically accurate (frankly, any piece of literature that fails to be consistent and unambiguous fails at that), and it doesn't tell us anything about what really happened back then, so it may well just be a fairytale until you find something factual you can compare it with.

And I'm not going to do your homework for you. To ensure you didn't just copy and paste that link and leave it up to everyone else to interpret that however they want to, you should explain why you think the bible actually has merit.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

And that's wishful thinking. Wanting something to be uneducated bliss rather than conspiracy has nothing to do with the true intentions of the authors of those accounts. It's the exact same reason nobody really knows why they wrote the bible in the first place, and why several different interpretations are possible.

They are the most preserved accounts of history.. in history. It must account for something. The books are over 3000 years old. They must have some credibility historically.

Can you prove that you existed 5 seconds ago? Such is the rationale of dismissing it's history as fairytale.

You are confusing divination with history.

 

[der Astronom]

They are the most preserved accounts of history.. in history. It must account for something. The books are over 3000 years old. They must have some credibility historically.

Actually, I think it's not very well preserved. In addition to writing about events that happened 100's of years before the writers were born, the bible has been heavily edited and transcribed by lots of people, and I'm sure lots of details got lost, reinterpreted or completely changed, either intentionally or not, and this is obvious because the bible isn't consistent at all.

Age is not the only indication for the credibility of something. Harry Potter books might be relatively new, but that doesn't mean it says anything about what happened to people in the 21st century.

Can you prove that you existed 5 seconds ago? Such is the rationale of dismissing it's history as fairytale.

Sure I can. I wouldn't say prove, as that's not what I really asked for anyways (I just said evidence, and anyone looking for absolute proof in something outside the realms of abstract subjects like math is being absurd). Let's just say if I hadn't read your post 5 seconds ago, I couldn't be responding to it as I am right now. And in order for me to read something, and provide a reply, I'd have to exist. There's no evidence of people who don't exist who can read and reply to posts.

You are confusing divination with history.

And there's plenty of the former in the bible, so I don't see why the bible is necessarily historically accurate.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I just think a certain prejudice factors into not believing it's history
After all, the Egyptians and Greeks had plenty of divination, most even less believable than the Judaic god, and all seriousness takes heed to their history.

 

[der Astronom]

I just think a certain prejudice factors into not believing it's history
After all, the Egyptians and Greeks had plenty of divination, most even less believable than the Judaic god, and all seriousness takes heed to their history.

But unlike the bible, not all Egyptian and Greek written accounts are devoted to divination, and because we can identify who the writers are, and what they were writing what they wrote for (eg, philosophy, science or anything but religion), the context makes it clear what they're writing about, whether it's what they believe, and what actually happened to them. You have Greek accounts written by people who wrote about what actually happened to them, and not something that happened before they were born, and there are probably just as many for Egyptian accounts too. I'm not doubting that some of them might have written about stuff that occurred before they were born, but we can tell when they are and when they aren't.

But that doesn't really matter; what matters is that we can verify what they wrote, and if their accounts hold up to scrutiny, then it is historically accurate.

For example, I find accounts about Archimedes' math and science demonstrations more plausible than the bible. There are accounts written by others who witnessed his prowess in moving a ship on land, and he had many other writings regarding math and science that demonstrate that he knew what he was talking about. And on the other hand, there are also myths that are stretched beyond what Archimedes actually did, including his contributions in preparing before war. Now if we were really prejudiced against historical accuracy in the bible, then we would neglect the falsehoods concerning Archimedes' role in war rather than accepting that some things written about Archimedes' achievements are true, and some are not. All of these things are verifiable because we can test his demonstrations. And it's not any different with the bible; some people just aren't willing to acknowledge that models of a global flood are scientifically impossible, and the poetic, metaphorical messages don't make the meaning of the bible particularly clear, so it fails under the context of historical accuracy.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

All of these things are verifiable because we can test his demonstrations. And it's not any different with the bible; some people just aren't willing to acknowledge that models of a global flood are scientifically impossible, and the poetic, metaphorical messages don't make the meaning of the bible particularly clear, so it fails under the context of historical accuracy.

Most ancient civilizations, including Babylon, had their own idea of the flood (which each are surprisingly similar).
Nonetheless, that is a divine occurrence, technically history, but not really part of base history I am speaking of.
I'm talking about exodus, kings, war and things of that sort- the actual happenings that had no strong, direct divine counterparts.

 

[der Astronom]

Most ancient civilizations, including Babylon, had their own idea of the flood (which each are surprisingly similar).
Nonetheless, that is a divine occurrence, technically history, but not really part of base history I am speaking of.
I'm talking about exodus, kings, war and things of that sort- the actual happenings that had no strong, direct divine counterparts.

Yes, I know what you're getting at, but your previous argument was that the bible is the only thing that talks about these events, and that was why you believed it was historically accurate, and I'm saying that just because it's the only book that talks about what happened then doesn't mean it's historically accurate. And in the case of ancient civilizations talking about the flood, there's several problems. First of all, they might not even be talking about the same flood, and floods in general aren't uncommon occurrences. It's not surprising if they did happen. It's also entirely possible that these civilizations are talking about local floods, that just happened to have happened. They might not even have happened at the same time. The flood described of in the bible, however, displays no characteristics that match evidence of any flood we have found. It doesn't account for the current species that exist now, it doesn't account for the genetic diversity in our species, it doesn't account for the way the Earth crust looks right now, or the current sea level even. That's what I find so historically inaccurate about the depiction of the flood in the bible, and if other civilizations have descriptions of a flood that happened to be similar, and no evidence supports there ever having been a global flood, then maybe they're just plain wrong. Or maybe there is evidence of a local flood, and they just called it a global flood because their country was the entire world to them.

In fact, if they were all correct, then a few of them, which describe a sole survivor, whether it's Noah's Ark or some other guy happened to be in a different region than the accounts told from a different civilization. Ancient Chinese accounts tell of a flood in which only one person survived; they did not say he was Noah, or that he was anywhere near the Middle East where the Ark supposedly landed after the flood. They said the guy who survived started Chinese civilization, and did not say he was responsible for the existence of every other human being that exists in every other civilization--if we were to treat any of these accounts as being true, they can't all be true at the same time, even if they all talk about a similar flood. That would be a contradiction.

 

[Drachnon]

If you find stories of a single flood in multiple civilizations it could also just be that the flood was common folklore before it entered the bible and its tale found its way into different civilizations and considering we know how stories change when retold often enough, we can expect that most of it will have changed except for the basic premise: A flood and a guy on a boat with lots of stuff.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

there was a flood (in my kitchen), many (spiders) drowned, i was able to save some animals (my cats) by balancing on a very large wooden construct (the table). we floated for a very very long time (3 minutes) until the water disappeared (down the sink).

the end.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

there was a flood (in my kitchen), many (spiders) drowned, i was able to save some animals (my cats) by balancing on a very large wooden construct (the table). we floated for a very very long time (3 minutes) until the water disappeared (down the sink).

the end.

The entirety of the Bible is false on account of something that doesn't seem logical to you. Okay, then the entire encyclopedia is false because it says that gravity is strictly Newtonian.

I see a denial complex going on when it comes to the history of the Bible. One can embrace heiroglyphs and Norse gods all day and how Vikings pillaged, but no way, not the Bible.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

ive not made any posts about norse gods.

someone of your intellect should be able to interpret my post id have thought, its not that difficult. she said he said doesnt make for good facts.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

ive not made any posts about norse gods.

someone of your intellect should be able to interpret my post id have thought, its not that difficult. she said he said doesnt make for good facts.

Well heres a good ol fact for you:

Libraries have been around for many, many centuries. The Internet has been easily accessable for well over a decade.

They are filled with all sorts of information, including historoical conceptions in the Bible. You have called the bible a fairytale without even knowing, which officially puts you at the bottom of the debate if abundant historical truth is founded in it.
If you want to play 'technicality', then I can to.
You are wrong.