502 replies to this topic

[Alakhriveion]

Quote

You have the freedom to believe what you want to believe. No one can ever take that away from you, but you can change it.

Tautology.

Quote

What is recorded in the Bible is accepted today as history. It's in text books, internet, etc.

Not any good text books, and not any good internets.

[TheAvengerLever]

Quote

Tautology.

Which meaning are you applying to this term? Because I know there are several.

Quote

Not any good text books, and not any good internets.

Like you've ever actually gone through [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of text books and compared which ones are better than the other...

"And you have?"

Damn straight I have, considering my parents put me in the same damn History class throughout Junior High and High School.

[Reflectionist]

American History Textbooks do not mention the war that the United States lost with Canada. So I think it's safe to question SOME history.

The Qu'Ran does not (to my knowledge) say anything that would suggest that God would turn his back on Christians like Wolf Mentioned.

Pilate himself questioned truth.

The Bible isn't taken as history by anyone, Avenger. I don't know where you got that Idea.

[TheAvengerLever]

Obviously everyone I've ever seen debating this on TV, even non believers, takes on the Bible as history. If not...what the hell was going on back then?


EDIT: Everyone I've ever talked to...everyone I've debated with...the list can go on...

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 17 June 2006 - 12:37 AM.

[Alakhriveion]

TheAvengerButton, on Jun 17 2006, 01:25 AM, said:

Which meaning are you applying to this term? Because I know there are several.

Something that means nothing. From the dictionary: An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement "either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow." If you don't have a problem with that, try reading Derrida. (Post-Structuralist Rimshot)

Quote

Like you've ever actually gone through [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of text books and compared which ones are better than the other...

"And you have?"

Damn straight I have, considering my parents put me in the same damn History class throughout Junior High and High School.

WTF are you talking about?

Quote

Obviously everyone I've ever seen debating this on TV, even non believers, takes on the Bible as history.

I don't really need to respond to that, but I will because I wouldn't have spent two and a half years here if I wasn't compulsive about responding to things I disagree with: No, nonbelievers do not accept the Bible as fact. We are called nonbelievers because we do not believe. If nonbelievers accepted the Bible as fact, we would all be hypocritical morons. I assure you we are not.

[Selena]

The Bible provides a fairly vague look into a certain viewpoint of history (though obviously, stuff like the creation/dawn of man isn't going to be applicable since there's no way to double check that). And like Vazor mentioned earlier, most sources are biased. Usually based on who won the wars. But that's why you always, always read more than one source of information. So you can try your best to pick apart the fabrications of any document and find the truth.

As for my history textbooks in high school, they never used the Bible as a source of information. They made reference to how religions of all kinds were formed, focused on the culture of the people, but nothing else. You generally won't find many Bible-inspired history books out there unless they're books specifically dedicated to determining whether the Bible is true or false. You get to college/uni level books, and Bible references will be even more rare.



The only real history/research books I own that even MENTION the Bible somewhat (only somewhat, mind you) solidly are books published before 1900.

Edited by Selena, 17 June 2006 - 01:04 AM.

[Goose]

I want back in on the action. I agree with the newbie.

From Wikipedia

Quote

History is systematically collected information about the past. When used as the name of a field of study, history refers to the study and interpretation of the record of humans, families, and societies. Knowledge of history is often said to encompass both knowledge of past events and historical thinking skills.

Traditionally, the study of history has been considered a part of the humanities. However, in modern academia, history is increasingly classified as a social science, especially when chronology is the focus.

Using that definition history is a study of the past. The Bible can be used to study the past, correct? It can be used as a historical document that can be used to study what the people of the times believed. I've used it as a historical document. Heck, the simpsons can be used as a hsitorical document. A Letter written by a man in war to his mother can be used as a historical document. Its all information, everything thats ever written or passed down oratorally can be used as historical documents, the validity of those can be put into question though, but still can be used.

But all we need to is break down the word history. his-story. It is HIS STORY, a story written by somebody who was around to tell it. Objectivity in history is an impossibility, beacuse all history was written and passed down with bias. History is written by the winners.

I could get into postmodern thought, which is that we create our own truth, and that every possible thing is relative. But thats something for another day.

Quote

The Bible isn't taken as history by anyone, Avenger. I don't know where you got that Idea.

But Alas, the bible has been taken as history by people, called Fundamentalists. arunma would be a better person to argue this point, but his whole belief system is around basing the bible as fact, truth and history.

Edited by Goose, 17 June 2006 - 02:01 AM.

[Alakhriveion]

Quote

Using that definition history is a study of the past. The Bible can be used to study the past, correct?

As an artifact, not as a useful record.

Quote

It can be used as a historical document that can be used to study what the people of the times believed. I've used it as a historical document. Heck, the simpsons can be used as a hsitorical document. A Letter written by a man in war to his mother can be used as a historical document. Its all information, everything thats ever written or passed down oratorally can be used as historical documents, the validity of those can be put into question though, but still can be used.

Not if you view a text as a text, in which case the Bible is just WRONG.

Quote

But all we need to is break down the word history. his-story. It is HIS STORY, a story written by somebody who was around to tell it.

Folk Etymology.

Quote

Objectivity in history is an impossibility, beacuse all history was written and passed down with bias. History is written by the winners.

Except when it's not. Archeology, for example, puts forward history without bias for 'winners.' Also, while complete objectivity is impossible, if you believe an object exists, subjective accounts can be very useful in understanding it.

Quote

I could get into postmodern thought, which is that we create our own truth, and that every possible thing is relative. But thats something for another day.

That's something that's bullshit.

[Goose]

Quote

As an artifact, not as a useful record.

As Both. Whether you believe it as true or not, it is a useful record as to how certain people lived their lives. Same with the Koran and the Old Testament. Its the history of the Jewish people.

Quote

Not if you view a text as a text, in which case the Bible is just WRONG.

Thats a statement. In what way are you viewing a text as a text? The Bible is not "Just WRONG" its a document stateting the beliefs of a group of people, and their history.

Quote

Folk Etymology.

Which can be surprisingly acurate.

Quote

Except when it's not. Archeology, for example, puts forward history without bias for 'winners.'

But even archeology cant tell a story, it can give an account on behalf of what we find, but if you go into the depths of Archeology, it is us that is attaching a story to an object, based on what we know at the time. It cant be 100% accurate.

Quote

Also, while complete objectivity is impossible, if you believe an object exists, subjective accounts can be very useful in understanding it.

Thats one way you could look at the bible.

Quote

That's something that's bullshit.

I agree

[Alakhriveion]

Quote

As Both. Whether you believe it as true or not, it is a useful record as to how certain people lived their lives. Same with the Koran and the Old Testament. Its the history of the Jewish people.

But not a useful one.

Quote

Thats a statement. In what way are you viewing a text as a text? The Bible is not "Just WRONG" its a document stateting the beliefs of a group of people, and their history.

No, NOT their history. Anything that talks about pillars of fire and parting seas isn't something you can use to find the actual borders of actual nations at the time. A History is.

Quote

Which can be surprisingly acurate.

No, that's what academics call "making shit up."

Quote

But even archeology cant tell a story, it can give an account on behalf of what we find, but if you go into the depths of Archeology, it is us that is attaching a story to an object, based on what we know at the time. It cant be 100% accurate.

Like Korhend said, Jesus is Hitler. Imperfect doesn't mean equal. Archeology isn't 100% accurate, but it is MUCH more accurate than the mistranslated myths of an archaic tribe of desert nomads.

Quote

Thats one way you could look at the bible.

If the Bible were useful in that capacity. It isn't. At all.

[Goose]

Quote

No, that's what academics call "making shit up."

Etymology
The term history entered the English language in 1390 with the meaning of "relation of incidents, story" via the Old French historie, from the Latin historia "narrative, account." This itself was derived from the Ancient Greek ἱστορία, historía, meaning "a learning or knowing by inquiry, history, record, narrative," from the verb ἱστορεῖν, historeîn, "to inquire."

This, in turn, was derived from ἵστωρ, hístōr ("wise man," "witness," or "judge"). Early attestations of ἵστωρ are from the Homeric Hymns, Heraclitus, the Athenian ephebes' oath, and from Boiotic inscriptions (in a legal sense, either "judge" or "witness," or similar). The spirant is problematic, and not present in cognate Greek eídomai ("to appear").

ἵστωρ is ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European *wid-tor-, from the root *weid- ("to know, to see"), also present in the English word wit, the Latin words vision and video, the Sanskrit word veda, and the Slavic word videti and vedati, as well as others. (The asterisk before a word indicates that it is a hypothetical construction, not an attested form.) 'ἱστορία, historía, is an Ionic derivation of the word, which with Ionic science and philosophy were spread first in Classical Greece and ultimately over all of Hellenism.

In Middle English, the meaning was "story" in general. The restriction to the meaning "record of past events" in the sense of Herodotus arises in the late 15th century. In German, French, and indeed, most languages of the world other than English, this distinction was never made, and the same word is used to mean both "history" and "story". A sense of "systematic account" without a reference to time in particular was current in the 16th century, but is now obsolete. The adjective historical is attested from 1561, and historic from 1669. Historian in the sense of a "researcher of history" in a higher sense than that of an annalist or chronicler, who merely record events as they occur, is attested from 1531.

Quote

If the Bible were useful in that capacity. It isn't. At all.

But arent the gospels just subjective accounts of what happened at the time of Jesus?

Quote

But not a useful one.

Thats debateable.

Edited by Goose, 17 June 2006 - 03:44 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

TheAvengerButton, on Jun 17 2006, 04:32 AM, said:

The Bible is filled with symbols and such. To interpret it as seven actual days is one thing, but you can also believe that seven days to be longer periods of time.

But if you interpret it that way, then the Bible's account of how the Earth came to be is even more wrong, because plants came before the sunlight. So if days were interpreted to be more than a longer period, that would mean the plants died long before the sun appeared.

Parts of the Bible are not very reliable.

For example, the Bible talks about I think Solomon's Empire. Yet there is no evidence for its existence, not even from the supposed neighbouring countries.

[Alakhriveion]

Goose, on Jun 17 2006, 04:43 AM, said:

Etymology
The term history entered the English language in 1390 with the meaning of "relation of incidents, story" via the Old French historie, from the Latin historia "narrative, account." This itself was derived from the Ancient Greek ἱστορία, historía, meaning "a learning or knowing by inquiry, history, record, narrative," from the verb ἱστορεῖν, historeîn, "to inquire."

This, in turn, was derived from ἵστωρ, hístōr ("wise man," "witness," or "judge"). Early attestations of ἵστωρ are from the Homeric Hymns, Heraclitus, the Athenian ephebes' oath, and from Boiotic inscriptions (in a legal sense, either "judge" or "witness," or similar). The spirant is problematic, and not present in cognate Greek eídomai ("to appear").

ἵστωρ is ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European *wid-tor-, from the root *weid- ("to know, to see"), also present in the English word wit, the Latin words vision and video, the Sanskrit word veda, and the Slavic word videti and vedati, as well as others. (The asterisk before a word indicates that it is a hypothetical construction, not an attested form.) 'ἱστορία, historía, is an Ionic derivation of the word, which with Ionic science and philosophy were spread first in Classical Greece and ultimately over all of Hellenism.

In Middle English, the meaning was "story" in general. The restriction to the meaning "record of past events" in the sense of Herodotus arises in the late 15th century. In German, French, and indeed, most languages of the world other than English, this distinction was never made, and the same word is used to mean both "history" and "story". A sense of "systematic account" without a reference to time in particular was current in the 16th century, but is now obsolete. The adjective historical is attested from 1561, and historic from 1669. Historian in the sense of a "researcher of history" in a higher sense than that of an annalist or chronicler, who merely record events as they occur, is attested from 1531.

This doesn't support your original claim. Subjectivity is not the root of the word. Actually, now that I bother to check 'story,' the word for something subjective, has its roots in 'history,' not that it matters, as opposed to the other way around.

Quote

But arent the gospels just subjective accounts of what happened at the time of Jesus?

Yes, but they're too innacurate to help anyone form a sound idea of history.

Quote

Thats debateable.

Maybe that's why we're debating it!

[TheAvengerLever]

Quote

Yes, but they're too innacurate to help anyone form a sound idea of history.

No, no it isn't.

Quote

But if you interpret it that way, then the Bible's account of how the Earth came to be is even more wrong, because plants came before the sunlight. So if days were interpreted to be more than a longer period, that would mean the plants died long before the sun appeared.

It's GOD we're talking about here. I would think that, you know, since he is almighty that he'd be able to keep the plants alive long enough to bring light.

Quote

No, NOT their history. Anything that talks about pillars of fire and parting seas isn't something you can use to find the actual borders of actual nations at the time. A History is.

...you're missing the point. It's not always all about the miraculous things that happen in the Bible. It's about what they do, how they live.

Quote

Like Korhend said, Jesus is Hitler.

That's still the dumbest thing I've heard yet in this discussion.

[Alakhriveion]

TheAvengerButton, on Jun 17 2006, 02:51 PM, said:

No, no it isn't.

Have you READ the Bible? What part of putting two of every unclean animal and seven of every clean animal in a boat seems plausible to you, exactly?

Quote

It's GOD we're talking about here. I would think that, you know, since he is almighty that he'd be able to keep the plants alive long enough to bring light.

And there's the problem with taking the Bible as history, innit? The parts that are only borderline nonsense still can't be used as history, because they rely on the pure nonsense.

Quote

...you're missing the point. It's not always all about the miraculous things that happen in the Bible. It's about what they do, how they live.

Which is itself, riddled with innacuracy, and still too deeply couched in voodoo and humbug.

Quote

That's still the dumbest thing I've heard yet in this discussion.

Which means it is still going RIGHT over your head.

[TheAvengerLever]

Quote

Have you READ the Bible? What part of putting two of every unclean animal and seven of every clean animal in a boat seems plausible to you, exactly?

I've read the Bible, I'm reading the Bible, and I will be reading the Bible. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

Quote

And there's the problem with taking the Bible as history, innit? The parts that are only borderline nonsense still can't be used as history, because they rely on the pure nonsense.

Ah, if only you could grasp the concept of an almighty God.

Quote

Which is itself, riddled with innacuracy, and still too deeply couched in voodoo and humbug.

Voodoo and humbug...yaaah...

Quote

Which means it is still going RIGHT over your head.

Nope, not really.

[Alakhriveion]

Quote

I've read the Bible, I'm reading the Bible, and I will be reading the Bible. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

Nothing at all? The fact that it is totally impossible doesn't bother you even a LITTLE?

Quote

Ah, if only you could grasp the concept of an almighty God.

Oh, I can grasp it. Understanding the Bible doesn't lead to accepting it as fact, mostly because it doesn't make sense.

[TheAvengerLever]

Quote

Nothing at all? The fact that it is totally impossible doesn't bother you even a LITTLE?

...how is that impossible!?

Quote

Oh, I can grasp it. Understanding the Bible doesn't lead to accepting it as fact, mostly because it doesn't make sense.

No, you obviously can't grasp it. If you, if the whole world, could grasp it, then we wouldn't be having this conversation today.

[Alakhriveion]

TheAvengerButton, on Jun 17 2006, 03:20 PM, said:

...how is that impossible!?

TWO OF EVERY UNCLEAN ANIMAL, SEVEN OF EVERY CLEAN ANIMAL. IN ONE BOAT.

Quote

No, you obviously can't grasp it. If you, if the whole world, could grasp it, then we wouldn't be having this conversation today.

"If you disagree with me you must be stupid" is not a compelling argument. I would know.

[Korhend]

TheAvengerButton, on Jun 17 2006, 07:20 PM, said:

...how is that impossible!?

Because we live in a three-dimensional universe.

[TheAvengerLever]

Quote

TWO OF EVERY UNCLEAN ANIMAL, SEVEN OF EVERY CLEAN ANIMAL. IN ONE BOAT.

Still not impossible.

Quote

"If you disagree with me you must be stupid" is not a compelling argument. I would know.

Were those my exact words? Oh, my goodness I'm so sorry, whenever I said

Quote

No, you obviously can't grasp it. If you, if the whole world, could grasp it, then we wouldn't be having this conversation today

The words "stupid" or "disagree" were not included in that statement. Just because you cannot grasp a concept doesn't mean you're stupid. And by the way, I'm not one to go attacking people just because they dont believe what I believe. If you took it that way, I apologize.

[Korhend]

We are not attacking people for what they believe either. We for example, believe in math, and thats why we feel Noah's Ark cannot be possible.

[Alakhriveion]

TheAvengerButton, on Jun 17 2006, 03:37 PM, said:

The words "stupid" or "disagree" were not included in that statement. Just because you cannot grasp a concept doesn't mean you're stupid.

Negligible difference. You're suggesting that people wouldn't disagree with you if they had well-informed, thought out opinions. Sure, it's insulting, but I don't care about that: It isn't an actual argument. Sound and fury, signifying nothing!

[Reflectionist]

2 of every animal THEN. That doesn't include water based. Air based animals just need a little place to perch. They don't have to be in a cage everywhere.

Ever heard of MicroEvolution?

Edited by Reflectionist, 17 June 2006 - 04:18 PM.

[SteveT]

A few articles:

http://en.wikipedia....srael_and_Judah

http://en.wikipedia....ble_and_History

http://en.wikipedia....e_of_David_site

If there's any question about bias, note that the first two use the abhorrent BCE/CE dating euphamisms.

[arunma]

I'm always concerned about debating in long threads such as this, since the original topic has probably been lost. But alas, if SteveT posted, who am I to refuse? Wait while I think of something insightful to say.

[TheAvengerLever]

Quote

Negligible difference. You're suggesting that people wouldn't disagree with you if they had well-informed, thought out opinions. Sure, it's insulting, but I don't care about that: It isn't an actual argument. Sound and fury, signifying nothing!

I wasn't meaning to insult you. Get over it and get back on topic.

Look, there is no way to prove the Bible as truth or not. Seeing as no one knows the exact dates of ANYTHING in history, it is difficult to argue for both sides (The Bible Truthies, and the Bible Falseys)

No one side is ever, EVER, going to win the arguement until some form of perfect science comes up or someone invents a time machine and goes back in time. But do I believe the Bible is truth? Yes, yes I do. Am I crazy for it? Hell no.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 17 June 2006 - 06:47 PM.

[Alakhriveion]

Reflectionist, on Jun 17 2006, 05:17 PM, said:

2 of every animal THEN.

Meaning?

Quote

That doesn't include water based.

It surely includes all sea animals- rain isn't salt water.

Quote

Air based animals just need a little place to perch.

And food.

Quote

They don't have to be in a cage everywhere.

Huh?

Quote

Ever heard of MicroEvolution?

Yes, it doesn't exist and what does that have to do with this anyway?

Quote

Look, there is no way to prove the Bible as truth or not. Seeing as no one knows the exact dates of ANYTHING in history, it is difficult to argue for both sides (The Bible Truthies, and the Bible Falseys)

No one side is ever, EVER, going to win the arguement until some form of perfect science comes up or someone invents a time machine and goes back in time. But do I believe the Bible is truth? Yes, yes I do. Am I crazy for it? Hell no.

Just because we're both innaccurate to some degree doesn't mean we're innaccurate to the same degree. Again, if that were the case, you'd have to agree there's compelling evidence that Jesus is Hitler.

[Reflectionist]

Alak:

If microevolution doesn't exist, well, then I guess that macroevolution can't exist either. Which means that an intelligent Creator has created the Earth, and that the Bible could have been divinely inspired. That's what you just said, do you agree? Which side are you on, Alak?

Yes, microevolution does exist. Science has proven it. What I meant by then, is, there were two bears. After the Flood, they mated. Mammals do this. It makes more bears. Those bears go everywhere, mating along the way. When they reach the arctic, they evolve so they don't die. Now there's polar bears. Whoa. OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!????? That means... this could be possible for every kind of animal they had on the Ark.

Alak said

It surely includes all sea animals- rain isn't salt water.

True, but the Earth wasn't a desert then, was it?

Alak said

And food.

Okay, you got me. I don't know what to say to that. I mean, heck, it's not like animals eat other animals or anything.

Birds don't have to be IN the Ark. So, that doesn't count.

Besides, aren't you Jewish? This is Genesis. Genesis is in the Torah. Should you really be arguing against it?

Edited by Reflectionist, 17 June 2006 - 10:20 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

Quote

Again, if that were the case, you'd have to agree there's compelling evidence that Jesus is Hitler.

Jesus is Jesus. Hitler is Hitler.

I have come to a conclusion on the subject of Biblical Truth. Goodbye.