Is Bible history fact or fiction?

[Boerseun]

...the process whose altar you bow down to. ...

Aaaaaaahhhhh!!!!! (Lightbulb shines brightly over Boerseun's bulbuous brow...)

 

It all makes sense to me now.

 

The Bible-thumpers don't (want to) get evolution 'cause they reckon its in competition with their belief. It's about as relevant as complaining about me having a candle competing with your 32-speed shimano-shiftgear shiny racing bike. What's a candle got to do with your bike? Exactly.

 

A toaster and a wheelbarrow has nothing to do with each other.

 

If my science discounts your belief, sorry to hear about it. It wasn't the intention, but, quite frankly, it's not my problem either. If the Emperor turns out to be butt-naked, its only his fault, and the idjits who bullshitted themselves into thinking they saw a three-piece suit over his flabby arse has only themselves and mass-gullibility to blame.

 

Science isn't trying to convert the masses, but, if in the normal progress of scientific development and discovery something is discovered which is contradictory to religion, why, all I can say is "sorry about that, there goes thousands of years of what turns out to be mass-delusion." And if science discovers something that discounts a previous scientific idea, the same rule applies.

 

But we don't bow down to anything, although I'm sure you meant it metaphorically.

[Skippy]

You know, we do also have a Math forum here...although I can't really prove addition.... "born 3-7 BCE and thus died 26-30CE" would mean 29 at the youngest and 37 at the oldest.

Sorry, didn't see the "B" the first time. Besides, people of my generation and beliefs still use "BC" and "AD." The "CE" BS is akin to taking "under God" out of the Pledge. I will try not to err again.

[Skippy]

Funny. You say there is no evidence, I provide evidence, but because it is written in the language of science (i.e., nothing is 100% certain) you throw it away out of hand. You certainly are far from the open mind you claim to be.

-Will

In the "language of science" we have "The Laws of Thermodynamics," "The Law of Gravity," "Boyle's Law," etc. You attempt to equate scientific "Theory" to "Law," Law says - "If this, Then that" Theory uses uncertain terms/phrases like "suggests," "claim," "is thought to be," "we think," "we predict," "can be extrapolated," etc. The terms and phrases of uncertainty exist because they cannot be verified repetedly as science demands to be considered more than theory.

[Skippy]

You certainly are far from the open mind you claim to be.

-Will

I read your material yesterday and have read the same material before... in fact have passed college level exams on the subject. Have you read my information with an open mind? Try it online, read it through the end with an open mind.

[Erasmus00]

In the "language of science" we have "The Laws of Thermodynamics," "The Law of Gravity," "Boyle's Law," etc. You attempt to equate scientific "Theory" to "Law," Law says - "If this, Then that" Theory uses uncertain terms/phrases like "suggests," "claim," "is thought to be," "we think," "we predict," "can be extrapolated," etc. The terms and phrases of uncertainty exist because they cannot be verified repetedly as science demands to be considered more than theory.

 

This betrays a misunderstanding of the way science works. There is no precedure for "promoting" a theory to a law. For instance, there is just as much support for special relativity as for Newtonian gravity, but on eis a theory, one is a law. And I would point out that while its the "Laws of Thermodynamics" its the "theory of statistical mechanics" though its the same subject. How can something be a "certain" law and an "uncertain" theory at the same time?

 

But this seems a little off topic, perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss this.

 

Edit: I also would point out that you haven't commented at all on why these don't, in fact, support evolution. You've only played semantic games.

-Will

[Erasmus00]

I read your material yesterday and have read the same material before... in fact have passed college level exams on the subject. Have you read my information with an open mind? Try it online, read it through the end with an open mind.

 

I have read the bulk of the Hebrew scriptures in Hebrew, and both KJV new testament in English.

-Will

[niviene]

I agree, Erasmus... I think it might make a good thread to start. But I am really curious, and it seems that the topic never really was met with an answer (or maybe I missed it throughout the arguing).

 

Are any parts of the bible real historical fact? I mean, I feel that Jesus existed because he is a part of so many historical accounts, so I think his life and death were real historical fact. Are there other parts that exist as strongly as this? I am very interested to know. Also, what is it that we accept as historical fact? I suppose I wonder about this part because I have studied history and I read and memorized our textbooks, and different historical courses with different authors wrote about things that all coincided - but I really don't know how they know these things. What is it that allows us (as a society, not as religious or non-religious persons) to accept things as historical fact? Some parts of Greek Mythology seem like they might have bits of fact - many of the places and cities are real, but did anything ever really happen there that was simply misconstrued in the re-telling or perception of the event? Or are all the events completely fictional? Did the Argos really exist? Anyway, just curious... please, no nitpicking, I am just curious about this topic... do we have any other historical data to back up other parts of the Bible?

[Chacmool]

I agree, Erasmus... I think it might make a good thread to start. But I am really curious, and it seems that the topic never really was met with an answer (or maybe I missed it throughout the arguing).

 

Are any parts of the bible real historical fact? I mean, I feel that Jesus existed because he is a part of so many historical accounts, so I think his life and death were real historical fact. Are there other parts that exist as strongly as this? I am very interested to know. Also, what is it that we accept as historical fact? I suppose I wonder about this part because I have studied history and I read and memorized our textbooks, and different historical courses with different authors wrote about things that all coincided - but I really don't know how they know these things. What is it that allows us (as a society, not as religious or non-religious persons) to accept things as historical fact? Some parts of Greek Mythology seem like they might have bits of fact - many of the places and cities are real, but did anything ever really happen there that was simply misconstrued in the re-telling or perception of the event? Or are all the events completely fictional? Did the Argos really exist? Anyway, just curious... please, no nitpicking, I am just curious about this topic... do we have any other historical data to back up other parts of the Bible?

Good questions, niviene. Indeed, how DO we know what is historical fact, and what is fiction? Surely a certain version will always suit some people more than others, and a particular version could even be very advantageous.

 

I finished school in South Africa in the same year we had our first democratic elections. The history taught in schools these days differs vastly from the history I was taught. And of course the version I learnt was just as highly promoted (to the point of basically being propaganda for the political leaders of the day) as the current version is. Maybe we'll have yet another version in a few years' time.

 

All this happened in a very short period of time - and in the living memory of millions of people. Isn't it possible that the Bible presents an even more distorted and biased version of historical events? (I realise many people hold the Bible very dear, and don't want to step on any toes - I'm just very interested in the possibilities.)

[Biochemist]

Are any parts of the bible real historical fact?

Gracious.

 

Once you get past Genesis 11, Abraham shows up. Most scholars, atheistic, agnostic and theistic, agree that most of the characters that are referenced really did exist and really did do about what the Bible says they did. Generally, the agnostic/atheistic group has problems with the miracles. There is a lot of discussion/debate about sequence and timing, and a lot of debate about locations, some of which still cannot be found.

 

But few scholars really discount the exodus from Egypt, the settlement of Canaan, the Babylonian captivity, the Assyrian invasion, the existence of the major prophets, the lineage of the kings of Judah, etc.

 

In the new testament, Luke is highy regarded as a historian. His detail in terms of historical accuracy of titles of individuals, and names of locations is highly regarded.

 

Ther are a couple of folks on this site who contend Jesus never existed, and that the Israelites were never in Egypt. Those are minority opinions. I think those folks would contend that gravity went sideways if "down" had theistic implications.

[Biochemist]

Isn't it possible that the Bible presents an even more distorted and biased version of historical events?

Certainly it is possible. It is also possible that the texts were corrupted in the interim betwen their original writing and the present day.

 

But a large body of archaeological information has surfaced that supports the Bible. There are some things that are missing that are interesting (like I think no one has found the first century Nazareth yet), but the quantity of corroboration is high.

 

My understanding is that 100 years ago, most archaeologists did not regard the Bible particularly highly. I have forgotten the reasons, but several of the older archaeologocal digs were thought to refute some of the significant Biblical stories. If memory serves, one example was that scholars thought they had found Jericho, and the location was starkly at odds with the location suggested in the bible. Later, someone found the real Jericho (complete with destroyed walls) and the Biblical record regained standing.

 

Overall, the Bible is currently regarded as a credible source to consider before planning a dig in Palestine.

[Skippy]

This betrays a misunderstanding of the way science works. There is no precedure for "promoting" a theory to a law. For instance, there is just as much support for special relativity as for Newtonian gravity, but one is a theory, one is a law. And I would point out that while its the "Laws of Thermodynamics" its the "theory of statistical mechanics" though its the same subject. How can something be a "certain" law and an "uncertain" theory at the same time?

 

But this seems a little off topic, perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss this.

-Will

If you choose to start a thread to answer why some theories have not been issued "Law" status, I'm sure you will get some replies. I thought the way science works is 1) observe a problem/phenomena, 2) develop a hypothesis to explain the problem/phenomena, 3) (honestly) test your hypothesis, 4) record your results, 5) compare the results to your hypothesis. Your results confirm or deny the legitimacy of your hypothesis. IF your results can be repeated, by others over time (years), then your theory can be elevated to Law status. If not, your hypothesis must be changed and/or new tests devised to prove your theory. (from memory so I may have skipped a step in the scientific method)

 

However, your assertion about being off topic is invalidated by all of the posts here. You, Freethinker and others contend that The Bible is not history fact partially because of evolution's disagreement with Genesis. My post referred to the fact that evolution is still called a Theory because it cannot be proved. I used your sources to point this out. The writer of the articles prove my point when they continually use the conditional words/phrases posted before.

[Freethinker]

You, Freethinker and others contend that The Bible is not history fact partially because of evolution's disagreement with Genesis.

Actually virtually every theory/ Law of Physics is contradicted by Genesis. Just as Genesis contradicts itself in the order presented in Gen 1 compared to Gen 2.

 

But it is easier to outright reject the bible as being historically accurate simply by comparing it to actual documented contemprary authors and their complete lack of confirmation of the rediculous claims made for the biblical Jesus the Christ. As show by the complete lack of a single confirming contemporary eyewitness to his existence.

[Skippy]

But it is easier to outright reject the bible as being historically accurate simply by comparing it to actual documented contemprary authors and their complete lack of confirmation of the rediculous claims made for the biblical Jesus the Christ. As show by the complete lack of a single confirming contemporary eyewitness to his existence.

HELLO, McFly!!!!!!!! :eek: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Paul - ALL contemporaries of Jesus, ALL of them but Paul were with Him before Golgotha.

[Biochemist]

HELLO, McFly!!!!!!!! :eek: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Paul - ALL contemporaries of Jesus, ALL of them but Paul were with Him before Golgotha.

I don't think Luke was with Jesus. But he was a contemporary, and spoke with multiple eyewitnesses.

[Skippy]

I don't think Luke was with Jesus. But he was a contemporary, and spoke with multiple eyewitnesses.

Once again I let my fingers get ahead of my editor. You are correct, Luke was one of the early converts and wrote his Gospel from eyewitness accounts.

[Hawkens]

About the Flood......

 

2Peter 3:3 First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts

2Peter 3:4 and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.

2Peter 3:5 For this is hidden from them by their willing it, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of the water, and through water, being held together by the Word of God,

2Peter 3:6 through which the world that then was, being flooded by water, perished.

2Peter 3:7 But the present heavens and the earth being kept in store by the same Word, are being kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

 

Oh and the Egyptian Empire was after the Great Flood. If your going by Carbon Dating then a few hundred year variations are not unheard of since carbon dating is as usless as using a tape measure to measure the thickness of your fingernail.

[Skippy]

About the Flood......

Oh and the Egyptian Empire was after the Great Flood. If your going by Carbon Dating then a few hundred year variations are not unheard of since carbon dating is as usless as using a tape measure to measure the thickness of your fingernail.

Welcome Hawkens! Thanks for bringing up carbon dating. I was waiting for one of the religious zealots (religion of evolution that is) to bring it up so I could make a similar point.

 

Maybe someone here can straighten out a couple of thoughts that have bothered me about carbon dating; How do we know the half life of something which reaches well beyond any of our lifetimes? Also, since it takes so long for a radio-active element to decay, do we know for certain that it decays at a linear rate or do we just see a portion of the curve and think it is linear?