Scripture and History, the same or different?

[polonius]

I am again introducing a topic which might have reader interest. Or not.

The question being addressed is if history and scripture are compatible. Is what scripture tells us happened really historical true?

Any thoughts?

[bluethread]

My thoughts on the subject are as follows: Yes, I believe what scripture tells us happened is really historically true. I claim this is my belief.



The above is a faith based claim.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

RESPONSE:

Somehow I prefer a fact based claim.

Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:

1. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality

So, on the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum, you expect that one discard Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma and explain things based on physical evidence and reason alone?

[polonius]

My thoughts on the subject are as follows: Yes, I believe what scripture tells us happened is really historically true. I claim this is my belief.



The above is a faith based claim.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

RESPONSE:

Somehow I prefer a fact based claim.

Broadly speaking, there are two categories of views regarding the relationship between faith and rationality:

1. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality

So, on the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum, you expect that one discard Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma and explain things based on physical evidence and reason alone?

RESPONSE:

Not at all. But I expect readers to recognize the difference between historical fact and pious legends which are contrary to factual history.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 20 by polonius.advice]

I totally agree with everything you've said. And I'm familiar with the archeological findings you have post.

My question was more of a rhetorical question for those who actually believe in the Biblical stories. If the original Jews who were enslaved in Egypt originally came from Canaan and were basically Canaanites themselves, then to have them return to Canaan as the "Promised Land" and kill their own relatives would be absurd.

There are many other problems with the Biblical narrative as well. Not the least of which is that if favors this tiny group of Canaanites that eventually became known as "Jews". Who then was the creator God of the Egyptians? And how about the Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, etc.? Not to mention the Indians of India, the Chinese, the American Indians, etc.

Clearly the Jewish folklore of a God who favors only them is a bit of an arrogant religious folklore.

How are they going to explain this other than to proclaim that all the other cultures I've mentioned had purposefully rejected their creator God. And that simply isn't a remotely rational thing to believe. In fact, the Christians need to also believe that all Muslims have rejected God and having knowingly and willingly given themselves over to following Satan via their own cognitive free will choice.

I just don't see where this religion has any credence at all. And this would be true even if the Jews were held as slaves in Egypt at some point in history. Even if that were true it would hardly justify the rest of the claims that this religion would need to make.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 20 by polonius.advice]

I totally agree with everything you've said. And I'm familiar with the archeological findings you have post.

My question was more of a rhetorical question for those who actually believe in the Biblical stories. If the original Jews who were enslaved in Egypt originally came from Canaan and were basically Canaanites themselves, then to have them return to Canaan as the "Promised Land" and kill their own relatives would be absurd.

There are many other problems with the Biblical narrative as well. Not the least of which is that if favors this tiny group of Canaanites that eventually became known as "Jews". Who then was the creator God of the Egyptians? And how about the Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, etc.? Not to mention the Indians of India, the Chinese, the American Indians, etc.

Clearly the Jewish folklore of a God who favors only them is a bit of an arrogant religious folklore.

How are they going to explain this other than to proclaim that all the other cultures I've mentioned had purposefully rejected their creator God. And that simply isn't a remotely rational thing to believe. In fact, the Christians need to also believe that all Muslims have rejected God and having knowingly and willingly given themselves over to following Satan via their own cognitive free will choice.

I just don't see where this religion has any credence at all. And this would be true even if the Jews were held as slaves in Egypt at some point in history. Even if that were true it would hardly justify the rest of the claims that this religion would need to make.

RESPONSE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths
A creation myth (or creation story) is a cultural, traditional or religious myth which describes the earliest beginnings of the present world. Creation myths are the most common form of myth, usually developing first in oral traditions, and are found throughout human culture. A creation myth is usually regarded by those who subscribe to it as conveying profound truths, although not necessarily in a historical or literal sense. They are commonly, although not always, considered cosmogonical myths—that is they describe the ordering of the cosmos from a state of chaos or amorphousness.

o 1.1Creation from chaos
o 1.2Earth diver
o 1.3Emergence
o 1.4Ex nihilo (out of nothing)
o 1.5World Parent
o 1.6Divine twins

[bluethread]

My question was more of a rhetorical question for those who actually believe in the Biblical stories. If the original Jews who were enslaved in Egypt originally came from Canaan and were basically Canaanites themselves, then to have them return to Canaan as the "Promised Land" and kill their own relatives would be absurd.

They originally came from Canaan, but they weren't Canaanites. They were Semites. Avraham emigrated from Babylon and was promised the land as part of the Covenant. That promise was reaffirmed to Yacov, before they were brought to Egypt by Yoseph.

There are many other problems with the Biblical narrative as well. Not the least of which is that if favors this tiny group of Canaanites that eventually became known as "Jews". Who then was the creator God of the Egyptians? And how about the Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, etc.? Not to mention the Indians of India, the Chinese, the American Indians, etc.

First, as I pointed out the Jews were not Canaanites and the land was given to all of the descendants of Yocav. Though each of those other peoples had their own views regarding who the creator was, they were all created by Adonai.

Clearly the Jewish folklore of a God who favors only them is a bit of an arrogant religious folklore.

That is an arrogant folklore. However, according to HaTorah, through the descendants of Avraham all the nations would be blessed.

How are they going to explain this other than to proclaim that all the other cultures I've mentioned had purposefully rejected their creator God. And that simply isn't a remotely rational thing to believe. In fact, the Christians need to also believe that all Muslims have rejected God and having knowingly and willingly given themselves over to following Satan via their own cognitive free will choice.

No, as we see in the case of Levanon, in the time of Shlomo, Ninevah, in the time of Yonah, and Babylon, in the time of Daniel, other nations recognized the deity of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yacov, and were blessed. In fact, Egypt was blessed in the time of Yoseph.

I just don't see where this religion has any credence at all. And this would be true even if the Jews were held as slaves in Egypt at some point in history. Even if that were true it would hardly justify the rest of the claims that this religion would need to make.

Ok, the Covenant is not based on your opinion, so I am not really concerned.

[polonius]

Bluethread

Ok, the Covenant is not based on your opinion, so I am not really concerned.

Question: In the “Covenant� historical or fictional? What evidence can you present?

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 13 by For_The_Kingdom]

Then the Bible makes no sense.

Returning home would hardly be "The Promised Land".

So these fables don't make any sense. The story isn't coherent. Which comes as no surprise to me.

You have still failed to explain where the rest of the Jews were during all this time.

So you haven't resolved anything. The problem still remains.

I know enough to speak on what I needed to speak on as it relates to what I educated you on.

You also haven't resolved the problem of a God who commands men "Thou shalt not kill" and then turns right back around and commands them to commit complete genocide including the killing of women and children.

So no soup for you. You haven't resolved anything.

The children are guaranteed a place in heaven. The women were probably just as evil as the men. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" was obviously talking about first/second degree MURDER.

Surely you realize that killing a man for trying to kill you (self defense) is a different animal than the calculated rape and murder of the old lady next door who did absolutely nothing to you.

If you don't see the difference there, then I don't know what to tell you.

[For_The_Kingdom]

RESPONSE: Actually the story began 430 years before the purported Exodus

See, this is what happens when you are so quick to attack/correct someone, you wind up not comprehending what you read because you are so eager to make your little "points".

I CLEARLY SAID "400+ years" in post #13 to DivineInsight...and you respond by saying "Actually the story began 430 years before the purported Exodus"..

What are you trying to correct me on?? Doesn't 400+ years cover 430 years?? Cmon now, bruh.

with Joseph being kidnapped and bought to Egypt by camel riding merchants.

Um, he wasn't kidnapped. READ THE BIBLE!! He was SOLD to the merchants by his brothers.

Unfortunately, the camel wasn't introduced to Egypt until about 750 BC.

Conclusion, the first books of the Bible were actually written after about 750 BC.

So what you are saying is, under absolutely NO circumstances before 750 BC did any foreign merchants (or otherwise) travel to Egypt on camels??

There is just absolutely no way you or anyone else can possibly know this with any certainty...and is by far the biggest example of pure speculation I've ever seen on here.

And that is saying a lot.

[polonius]

"]
with Joseph being kidnapped and bought to Egypt by camel riding merchants.

Um, he wasn't kidnapped. READ THE BIBLE!! He was SOLD to the merchants by his brothers.

RESPONSE: The first seven bibles are fictional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#Composition
The first five books – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, book of Numbers and Deuteronomy – reached their present form in the Persian period (538–332 BC), and their authors were the elite of exilic returnees who controlled the Temple at that time.[8] The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings follow, forming a history of Israel from the Conquest of Canaan to the Siege of Jerusalem c. 587 BC. There is a broad consensus among scholars that these originated as a single work (the so-called "Deuteronomistic history") during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BC.[9] The two Books of Chronicles cover much the same material as the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history and probably date from the 4th century BC.[10] Chronicles, and Ezra–Nehemiah, were probably finished during the 3rd century BC.[11] Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments contain two (Catholic Old Testament) to four (Orthodox) Books of Maccabees, written in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.
These history books make up around half the total content of the Old Testament. Of the remainder, the books of the various prophets – Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and the twelve "minor prophets" – were written between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, with the exceptions of Jonah and Daniel, which were written much later.[12] The "wisdom" books – Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Song of Solomon – have various dates: Proverbs possibly was completed by the Hellenistic time (332-198 BC), though containing much older material as well; Job completed by the 6th Century BC; Ecclesiastes by the 3rd Century BC.[13]

Ze’ev Herzog and the historicity of the Bible


Since 2005 he has been the Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University,
The article was entitled Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho, and it opened with these words:
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people – and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story – now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people’s emergence are radically different from what that story tells.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament#Composition
The first five books – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, book of Numbers and Deuteronomy – reached their present form in the Persian period (538–332 BC), and their authors were the elite of exilic returnees who controlled the Temple at that time.[8] The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings follow, forming a history of Israel from the Conquest of Canaan to the Siege of Jerusalem c. 587 BC. There is a broad consensus among scholars that these originated as a single work (the so-called "Deuteronomistic history") during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BC.[9] The two Books of Chronicles cover much the same material as the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic history and probably date from the 4th century BC.[10] Chronicles, and Ezra–Nehemiah, were probably finished during the 3rd century BC.[11] Catholic and Orthodox Old Testaments contain two (Catholic Old Testament) to four (Orthodox) Books of Maccabees, written in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.
These history books make up around half the total content of the Old Testament. Of the remainder, the books of the various prophets – Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and the twelve "minor prophets" – were written between the 8th and 6th centuries BC, with the exceptions of Jonah and Daniel, which were written much later.[12] The "wisdom" books – Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Song of Solomon – have various dates: Proverbs possibly was completed by the Hellenistic time (332-198 BC), though containing much older material as well; Job completed by the 6th Century BC; Ecclesiastes by the 3rd Century BC.[13]

Ze’ev Herzog and the historicity of the Bible


Since 2005 he has been the Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University,
The article was entitled Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho, and it opened with these words:
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people – and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story – now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people’s emergence are radically different from what that story tells.

Unfortunately, the camel wasn't introduced to Egypt until about 750 BC.

Conclusion, the first books of the Bible were actually written after about 750 BC.

So what you are saying is, under absolutely NO circumstances before 750 BC did any foreign merchants (or otherwise) travel to Egypt on camels??

There is just absolutely no way you or anyone else can possibly know this with any certainty...and is by far the biggest example of pure speculation I've ever seen on here.

And that is saying a lot.

RESPONSE: You can argue whatever your please without presenting any evidence.

[marco]

What kind of real estate agent is God that he couldn't come up with uninhabited land to offer the Jews as "Promised Land"?

"Here's your promised land. Just go kill all the people who are living on it and it's all yours. Oh, and by the way, Thou shalt not kill!"

Sounds pretty fishy to me.

My opinion? I don't buy it.

It is possibly wrong to expect God to be an efficient estate agent. It was good he noticed some inhabited territory and rather naughtily offered it to his friends.

Scripture paints the pictures old nomads imagined were of God and adds nice words and sometimes nicer music; history tries to tell things as they were. History has no place for seas moving aside to let a few nomads pass or ladies becoming pillars of salt. Scripture delights in such stories.