For once, I'd like to hear people speak from knowledge of Jewish history rather from the lack of knowledge of Jewish history so you can be considered credible. Any takers?
Knowledge of history
Moderator: Moderators
Knowledge of history
Post #1I've been hearing so many claims here from people who claim that the bible isn't the truth. So from what knowledge of Jewish history do you make those claims?
For once, I'd like to hear people speak from knowledge of Jewish history rather from the lack of knowledge of Jewish history so you can be considered credible. Any takers?
For once, I'd like to hear people speak from knowledge of Jewish history rather from the lack of knowledge of Jewish history so you can be considered credible. Any takers?
Re: Knowledge of history
Post #2Moderator Comment
For now, I am going to move it to another appropriate forum. If you want to revise the OP and have it moved back, please PM me.
THis is not really a debate topic, but more a question for a certain set of forum members. I don't see that there is any proposition or set of propositions to debate.Carico wrote:I've been hearing so many claims here from people who claim that the bible isn't the truth. So from what knowledge of Jewish history do you make those claims?
For once, I'd like to hear people speak from knowledge of Jewish history rather from the lack of knowledge of Jewish history so you can be considered credible. Any takers?
For now, I am going to move it to another appropriate forum. If you want to revise the OP and have it moved back, please PM me.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Re: Knowledge of history
Post #3Wouldn't it be more useful to be knowledgeable in christian history rather than jewish? After all if you are trying to prove the bible true jewish history can only speak of the old testament.Carico wrote:I've been hearing so many claims here from people who claim that the bible isn't the truth. So from what knowledge of Jewish history do you make those claims?
For once, I'd like to hear people speak from knowledge of Jewish history rather from the lack of knowledge of Jewish history so you can be considered credible. Any takers?
You need to understand the bible is ONLY a religious text, nothing more. It is not a science book it is not a history text it is just a religious text that many people have seen fit to interpret nearly every single word in it to fit into their agenda. To claim that you have the truth of the bible just means you are the latest of an army of people through history that have made that claim and you are just as correct as any of them.
Re: Knowledge of history
Post #4Sorry, but one needs to be knowledgeable about Jewish history in order to claim that the bible is false and not historical truth. Since Christianity is based on the bible, then unless one presents knowledge that it's false by historical documents, then his claim that the bible is false is called slander because he cannot back up his claims by facts. So let's hear your facts or you have no case against the bible.Wyvern wrote:Wouldn't it be more useful to be knowledgeable in christian history rather than jewish? After all if you are trying to prove the bible true jewish history can only speak of the old testament.Carico wrote:I've been hearing so many claims here from people who claim that the bible isn't the truth. So from what knowledge of Jewish history do you make those claims?
For once, I'd like to hear people speak from knowledge of Jewish history rather from the lack of knowledge of Jewish history so you can be considered credible. Any takers?
You need to understand the bible is ONLY a religious text, nothing more. It is not a science book it is not a history text it is just a religious text that many people have seen fit to interpret nearly every single word in it to fit into their agenda. To claim that you have the truth of the bible just means you are the latest of an army of people through history that have made that claim and you are just as correct as any of them.
Re: Knowledge of history
Post #5How can christianity be based on the bible? You do understand don't you that the bible didn't come together as a single volume until the council of Nicea? All the books of the bible were at one time actual separate books until the council came around and decided what was official doctrine and left out that which they decided what was not.Carico wrote:Sorry, but one needs to be knowledgeable about Jewish history in order to claim that the bible is false and not historical truth. Since Christianity is based on the bible, then unless one presents knowledge that it's false by historical documents, then his claim that the bible is false is called slander because he cannot back up his claims by facts. So let's hear your facts or you have no case against the bible.Wyvern wrote:Wouldn't it be more useful to be knowledgeable in christian history rather than jewish? After all if you are trying to prove the bible true jewish history can only speak of the old testament.Carico wrote:I've been hearing so many claims here from people who claim that the bible isn't the truth. So from what knowledge of Jewish history do you make those claims?
For once, I'd like to hear people speak from knowledge of Jewish history rather from the lack of knowledge of Jewish history so you can be considered credible. Any takers?
You need to understand the bible is ONLY a religious text, nothing more. It is not a science book it is not a history text it is just a religious text that many people have seen fit to interpret nearly every single word in it to fit into their agenda. To claim that you have the truth of the bible just means you are the latest of an army of people through history that have made that claim and you are just as correct as any of them.
I have no case against the bible as long as you consider it ONLY a religious text. If you want it to be considered historically true and you insist on including the old testament it is easy to bring a case against the bible. If the flood happened as stated in the bible then all historical documents prior to it would have been destroyed. Everything prior to the flood is at best a recreation from memory and if you accept jewish tradition as it seems you do then Moses is the author of the entire old testament. Moses had no historical documents to work from and definately had no eyewitnesses to anything prior to the flood. Just from this alone the bible can not be considered historically true. If you want to be considered historically true you have to follow the rules of history, just like if you want to be considered scientifically true you have to follow the rules of science. And the bible does neither.
Post #7
I've been hearing so many claims here from people who claim that the[strike] bible[/strike] Poetic Edda isn't the truth. So from what knowledge of [strike]Jewish[/strike] Norse history do you make those claims?
For once, I'd like to hear people speak from knowledge of [strike]Jewish[/strike] Norse history rather from the lack of knowledge of [strike]Jewish[/strike] Norse history so you can be considered credible. Any takers?
For once, I'd like to hear people speak from knowledge of [strike]Jewish[/strike] Norse history rather from the lack of knowledge of [strike]Jewish[/strike] Norse history so you can be considered credible. Any takers?
Post #8
The history of the creation of Judaism is reported in the Bible itself, in 2 Kings 22 / 2 Chronicles 34. This explanation was confirmed by archaeology.
-
Slopeshoulder
- Banned
- Posts: 3367
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Post #9
It's not a question of truth as a function of presence or absence of historical accuracy. This is basic. The bible is history interpreted through a specific theological lens (or set of related lenses). It is covenant history or salvation history, a gloss on experience meant to edify and enlighten.
In my informed yet rusty opinion, the magical parts are metaphorical, poetic, or mythical (in the best sense). The realistic historical parts are as accurate as we can expect from a one sided account. But overall it's more nuanced. Ark, nope. Babylon, yup. Burning bush, nope. Exodus, yup. God and da debbil talking about and messing with Job, nope. Maccabbeean revolt, yup. Daniel as a visionary artist, yup. Daniel as real, nope. Prophets as proponents and heralds of covenant, law, identity, and insight, yup. Prophets as future predictors, hell nope.
But they all are woven together into a specific religious vision wherein all are meaningful and make a claim to be "true". This makes them scripture. This is how premoderns did it. It worked in all cultures for millennia. Now, in the modern mind science and fiction are in different worlds, history wants to be a social science but may be a politicized myth itself after the raw 'facts' are known, and religion is trying to juggle it all.
Judaism is a historical faith because its God is a God that acts in and presides over history, so events matter, and finding God in all matters. The other two Abrahamic faiths share this.
The bible is "true" only if and as it is meaningful and transformative.
The entire OP question is off the mark, as are the targets of that question.
best to save bandwidth and close the thread now...
In my informed yet rusty opinion, the magical parts are metaphorical, poetic, or mythical (in the best sense). The realistic historical parts are as accurate as we can expect from a one sided account. But overall it's more nuanced. Ark, nope. Babylon, yup. Burning bush, nope. Exodus, yup. God and da debbil talking about and messing with Job, nope. Maccabbeean revolt, yup. Daniel as a visionary artist, yup. Daniel as real, nope. Prophets as proponents and heralds of covenant, law, identity, and insight, yup. Prophets as future predictors, hell nope.
But they all are woven together into a specific religious vision wherein all are meaningful and make a claim to be "true". This makes them scripture. This is how premoderns did it. It worked in all cultures for millennia. Now, in the modern mind science and fiction are in different worlds, history wants to be a social science but may be a politicized myth itself after the raw 'facts' are known, and religion is trying to juggle it all.
Judaism is a historical faith because its God is a God that acts in and presides over history, so events matter, and finding God in all matters. The other two Abrahamic faiths share this.
The bible is "true" only if and as it is meaningful and transformative.
The entire OP question is off the mark, as are the targets of that question.
best to save bandwidth and close the thread now...
