Equal treatment for the Bible

[Zzyzx]

.
Equal treatment for the Bible

Bible defenders occasionally ask that the Bible be given the same treatment as other documents / historical writings from ancient times. Let's consider that proposition.

1. Are ancient historical documents generally considered to be accurate in detail or to-the-word?

2. Are ancient documents from other religions accepted by Bible believers as being historically accurate and truthful?

3. Are supernatural stories and claims made in other historical documents regarded as truthful and accurate?

4. Are ancient historical documents used as instructions or guidelines for making modern decisions or modern laws?

5. Are ancient historical documents generally regarded as nice-to-know but not of paramount importance?

6. Are ancient historical documents deemed sacred, holy, above reproach?

7. Is there any valid reason that the Bible should be considered as more truthful and accurate than other documents from ancient history?

8. If the Bible is given equal treatment with other ancient documents, what is left as a basis for Christianity?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx

To me it sounds like we have given the request "treat x as x' a very different definition from x.

Seems to me the criteria given was rhetorical, i.e., not really asking good historical questions, but playing the old and threadbare religious questions.


How about let's give a list of real historical criteria than give a list of criteria designed to discount the subject matter...

For instance, this

6. Are ancient historical documents deemed sacred, holy, above reproach?

Is not a real historical category! When Christians ask that the bible be treated as an historical document, they are specifically NOT asking it to be treated as such.

One has to wonder, are non-Christians a little nervous about treating the Bible as an historical document because then they can't use the old religious jargon which came so easily....

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I wrote a response elsewhere, but I give another.

I feel the OP has failed to respect the request of those who wish their religious texts be subjected to real historical inquiry. I fear that the OP's approach is rhetorical and not serious.

So, I give non-partisan answers to all her/his questions

Bible defenders occasionally ask that the Bible be given the same treatment as other documents / historical writings from ancient times. Let's consider that proposition.

Great! I am ready for you to treat the Bible as an historical document and ask of it historical questions...I hope that you do so...

1. Are ancient historical documents generally considered to be accurate in detail or to-the-word?

Yikes!!! This is treating the Bible NOT as an historical document. You are clearly NOT asking whether an event happened in the Bible! It is like you are saying "fine let's not treat x as x but as y" but then you go on treating it as "x"!

2. Are ancient documents from other religions accepted by Bible believers as being historically accurate and truthful?

Religious scholars of all persuasions research other religious texts for historical knowledge. This is so common knowledge that one has to wonder what you are about.

3. Are supernatural stories and claims made in other historical documents regarded as truthful and accurate?

Automatically? No. But then, those asking for their religious documents to be studied as historically documents are saying that WHEN they are studied as historical documents, then their claims will have strength.

4. Are ancient historical documents used as instructions or guidelines for making modern decisions or modern laws?

Is anyone on this site asking this of you? Or are you playing a game here?

8. If the Bible is given equal treatment with other ancient documents, what is left as a basis for Christianity?

Plenty.

[Zzyzx]

.

Bible defenders occasionally ask that the Bible be given the same treatment as other documents / historical writings from ancient times. Let's consider that proposition.

Great! I am ready for you to treat the Bible as an historical document and ask of it historical questions...I hope that you do so...

If the Bible is treated as an historical document, can claims of supernatural events be shown to be truthful and accurate accounts of events that actually happened in the real world – specifically:

1. Resurrection
2. Ascension
3. Virgin Birth
4. Curing blindness with mud and spit

What historical methodology and verifiable evidence can be utilized to verify those tales? If they cannot be verified by something more than the tales themselves that make the claim, do we accept them as historically accurate and truthful? If so, why?

1. Are ancient historical documents generally considered to be accurate in detail or to-the-word?

Yikes!!! This is treating the Bible NOT as an historical document. You are clearly NOT asking whether an event happened in the Bible! It is like you are saying "fine let's not treat x as x but as y" but then you go on treating it as "x"!

Correction: That question asks NOTHING about the Bible -- but is a general question about historical documents.

2. Are ancient documents from other religions accepted by Bible believers as being historically accurate and truthful?

Religious scholars of all persuasions research other religious texts for historical knowledge. This is so common knowledge that one has to wonder what you are about.

Reading the question . . . 'Are ancient documents from other religions accepted by Bible believers as being historically accurate and truthful?'

Care to attempt an answer to the question asked?

3. Are supernatural stories and claims made in other historical documents regarded as truthful and accurate?

Automatically? No. But then, those asking for their religious documents to be studied as historically documents are saying that WHEN they are studied as historical documents, then their claims will have strength.

Let's see how that works out with 1 through 4 above.

4. Are ancient historical documents used as instructions or guidelines for making modern decisions or modern laws?

Is anyone on this site asking this of you? Or are you playing a game here?

Nice dodge – avoiding answering a question by posing another question instead of even making an attempt. Game playing seems to apply to ducking questions.

8. If the Bible is given equal treatment with other ancient documents, what is left as a basis for Christianity?

Plenty.

Present the evidence.

[OnceConvinced]

1. Are ancient historical documents generally considered to be accurate in detail or to-the-word?

I for one don't believe that historical documents are 100% accurate. It would be foolish to believe they are. If we are to treat say the bible in the same way as historical documents, then we should also not consider the bible to be 100% accurate.

2. Are ancient documents from other religions accepted by Bible believers as being historically accurate and truthful?

I, as a Christian never took other religions documents seriously. I now consider all religious documents the same.

3. Are supernatural stories and claims made in other historical documents regarded as truthful and accurate?

If there are claims of supernatural events in historical documents, I would have a very hard time taking that document as truthful and accurate.

4. Are ancient historical documents used as instructions or guidelines for making modern decisions or modern laws?

Certainly not in my case. I do not use historical documents as guidelines for my life today and I would not be able to take anyone seriously who told me I had to. Even less so if they threatened me with death or violence.

5. Are ancient historical documents generally regarded as nice-to-know but not of paramount importance?

For sure. History is fascinating, but it has no real bearing on my life. Whether the stories are true or not has no impact whatsoever on my life.

6. Are ancient historical documents deemed sacred, holy, above reproach?

Absolutely not. They should be challenged and they should be corrected if they are found to be incorrect. If we are to treat the bible the same as historical documents, then we should be able to point out the errors in the bible and they should be corrected or acknowledged as errors.

7. Is there any valid reason that the Bible should be considered as more truthful and accurate than other documents from ancient history?

Absolutely not. In fact it contains more crazy and unbelievable stuff than the majority of historical documents I've ever come across. Also when one lives by the bible and finds that many of the things do not line up with reality, it should be considered less truthful and accurate.

8. If the Bible is given equal treatment with other ancient documents, what is left as a basis for Christianity?

Not much. If we are to treat the bible as equal to other historical documents we should not be treating it as God's word. We would not treat other historical documents as God's word.

If we were to treat the bible as equal to historical documents we would not be studying it over and over again. We would not have study groups dedicated to it or be preaching sermons based on it.

We would also be looking outside the document for evidence of its truth and not just reject anything that contradicted it.

We would not deem historical documents to be true because they claim to be true. Nor would we see it as divine in any way.

We should be able to throw bibles into fires and tear them apart without feeling that we are defiling something sacred.

There is no need to go onto websites to defend historical literature. If we treat the bible the same there should be no need to go on websites and defend it either. There is no need for Historical Document Apologetics, so why should there be a need for Bible Apologetics?

[oldbadger]

.
Equal treatment for the Bible

Some of the books and anecdotes...... yes.

Bible defenders occasionally ask that the Bible be given the same treatment as other documents / historical writings from ancient times. Let's consider that proposition.

OK..... but the bible's books are from ancient times as well....

1. Are ancient historical documents generally considered to be accurate in detail or to-the-word?

No...... but some parts, anecdotes and passages are so neutral, negative for Christianity or downright embarrassing that historians might tend to focus on these more seriously.

2. Are ancient documents from other religions accepted by Bible believers as being historically accurate and truthful?

I've never read any, but since I am very cautious in my scrutiny of the bible I would say that I am a cautious reader of that.

3. Are supernatural stories and claims made in other historical documents regarded as truthful and accurate?

I don't trust humans very much, and many historical documents are loaded by battle victors, politicians, religionists, nutters and deceivers so I 'travel with a skeptical eye' all the time!

4. Are ancient historical documents used as instructions or guidelines for making modern decisions or modern laws?

Well, if you subtract the 96 odd sacrificial laws, the several odd sexual prejudice laws and the odd clothing ideas, etc, the OT laws are not bad guidelines.... just sayin'...

5. Are ancient historical documents generally regarded as nice-to-know but not of paramount importance?

Nice to know....... but then my interest in the gospels is a hobby, not a way of life....

6. Are ancient historical documents deemed sacred, holy, above reproach?

Sadly the ones I study can be filled with jumbled anecdotes on crazy timelines, exaggerations and outright lies, which does not help for accuracy, but then, if it was easy there would be no point to what I do.

7. Is there any valid reason that the Bible should be considered as more truthful and accurate than other documents from ancient history?

Sadly not. My books of interest have been riddled and fiddled with, or even just outright drivvled with occasional useful pericopes.

8. If the Bible is given equal treatment with other ancient documents, what is left as a basis for Christianity?

Christianity? Nothing.
The life and mission of Jesus the handworker has truth imo, but at the point where Jesus dies or dissappears Christianity takes over, a jumble of control freaking drivvle.

Example:- Christianity even exhorts slaves to succumb to their situations, even under 'forward' masters. See for yourself:-
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (1 Peter 2:18)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear (Ephesians 6:5)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything (Colossians 3:22)

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them (Titus 2:9)

[Willum]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...
The all-powerful lord of the universe is big enough and powerful enough to take care of himself without relying on a book.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Equal treatment for the Bible

I treat the Bible same as I do them See Spot Run books. I figure there might not be no real "Spot", but if I pretend along, I might learn me how to read.

Bible defenders occasionally ask that the Bible be given the same treatment as other documents / historical writings from ancient times. Let's consider that proposition.

1. Are ancient historical documents generally considered to be accurate in detail or to-the-word?

Generally considered?

That reeks too much of an argument from we're's all so proud. I'd prefer to consider such in terms of do they reflect reality.

2. Are ancient documents from other religions accepted by Bible believers as being historically accurate and truthful?

Heck, some of 'em don't even accept current documentation of global warming.

3. Are supernatural stories and claims made in other historical documents regarded as truthful and accurate?

I've run me into some that do. I've heard (though can't site) a theist or two who accepts supernatural claims of religions other'n the one it is they are.

4. Are ancient historical documents used as instructions or guidelines for making modern decisions or modern laws?

If there's an old document that says such as "Now Joey, you big ol' goofball, don't you do you nothin' that'll upset that pretty thing yonder, 'cause ya know, she's a girl and all, and ya know, girls are girls, they have girly parts, and will, if you'll just behave, share them girly parts with ya, not like you can tote 'em around, but ya know, ya can touch 'em and stuff", then yes.

Otherwise, my position is that such'd be more coincidence than divine knowledge.

5. Are ancient historical documents generally regarded as nice-to-know but not of paramount importance?

There we go.

6. Are ancient historical documents deemed sacred, holy, above reproach?

Yes.

I have me a certificate of live birth issued from a place that does it the live birth certificatin', that 'lows me access to certain stuff I couldn't if my skin was brown and I didn't have me one of 'em.

7. Is there any valid reason that the Bible should be considered as more truthful and accurate than other documents from ancient history?

When it can be shown to be.

Only don't it beat all, so often it is, it ain't.

8. If the Bible is given equal treatment with other ancient documents, what is left as a basis for Christianity?

Errant concludings.

One of y'all that can French, please do me the interpretatin', so's I can fancy it up.

[Willum]

The truth is Xenophon wrote history like poetry, but he lied.
Herodotus clearly favored the Persians.
and so on, and so on and so on.

The key difference between the Bible and histories are that Wells, Tacitus, Gibbon, Hume and so on, may have imprinted their opinions and bias on what they recorded, but when they did, they didn't talk about winged men, dragons, leviathans, unicorns, mountain-spanning floods, resurrections or wizards.

Can anyone see the difference?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Nice to see liam back posting again.

To answer Zs questions:

1. Are ancient historical documents generally considered to be accurate in detail or to-the-word?

Depends of the document naturally. Something that is supported by archaeology or other independent works can be given more consideration as accurate. The topic matters too. A document detailing floods of a major river has a better chance of being accepted by itself compared to a document claiming someone had relations with animals and produced minotaurs and centaurs for example. Evidence of tampering and changing material over time is also a red flag.

2. Are ancient documents from other religions accepted by Bible believers as being historically accurate and truthful?

No, and the Bible claims aren't accepted by the other religions either. This means all groups have a decided bias for one work and against the other works, almost always without doing any investigating or study of the other materials to check on their validity or veracity.

3. Are supernatural stories and claims made in other historical documents regarded as truthful and accurate?

No. When it comes to believing something from ancient communication, it appears quite universal that people accept only one version as real and the rest as mythological nonsense.

4. Are ancient historical documents used as instructions or guidelines for making modern decisions or modern laws?

Yes, often to the incredible detriment of the people living there, and at a high cost to individual freedom and rights.

5. Are ancient historical documents generally regarded as nice-to-know but not of paramount importance?

Not always. Like in #1, it depends on the document and what it entails.

6. Are ancient historical documents deemed sacred, holy, above reproach?

The vast majority of historical documents are not deemed that way by everyone, and a few documents are deemed that way by some, but not all, people.

7. Is there any valid reason that the Bible should be considered as more truthful and accurate than other documents from ancient history?

It should not be considered truthful just because it exists as a document. The veracity of its claims should be studied and verified just as any other document should be.

8. If the Bible is given equal treatment with other ancient documents, what is left as a basis for Christianity?

That equal treatment will be ignored by those that don't want to know any different than what they currently believe, and they will continue making unsubstantiated claims about it's superiority despite the evidence to the contrary. They do that now.