Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is Bible history fact or fiction?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
313 replies to this topic

#52 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 01:07 AM

I came here to talk about science creation vs evolution


I don't know about the scientific field of "creation", nor of a science of creation field. If you are thinking about Intelligent Design then it is not a scientific field, but an attempt by creationists so claim they are not creationists but scientists (and this has been discussed many times here at Hypography already).

it enthralls me..it is fasinating...but the Bible also does...and sorry for getting so excited.


No need to be sorry. I also find the bible and the history of religion interesting. But from my vantage point the bible is just one of many available religions, and as such the archaeological finds are interesting in that they support the historic validity of a religion's historic events. They do not however prove the supernatural claims, only that person X may have lived in city Y during the wars of Z and so on.

#53 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 01:11 AM

This is interesting. I will not doubt your word, can you give me some of the archeological evidence of their book, or give me a link to a website?


Google is your friend.

Plus our pal Tinny here at Hypography will probably be more than happy to provide you with links...and you will find sources around Hypography, too.

The problem is that just like your own links, the sources are mostly from religious sites and as such are inherintly unreliable.

#54 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 01:12 AM

Ok...science does mot proove supernaturalism...that's whats so supernatural about it.

but the archeoligical findings go along with the claims...meaning that it could have been true.

#55 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 01:14 AM

so you say that the religouse sites are less scientific than the seculer scientific sites? thus you cannot believe them.
this has also been on the news.(the real Mt. Sinai).

The religouse scientists aren't as truthfull as the secular scientists...and don't use science like the secular scientists do, so you cannot take them literaly like the secular scientists, even though they are well trained and learned in their "perfession of science".

#56 Rincewind

Rincewind

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 01:20 AM

...the god of the Qu'ran is not the God of the Bible...

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

#57 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 01:25 AM

I wouldn't be so sure of that.


well...can you tell me that after you compare the both of them togeather? and tell me their similarities.

#58 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 01:26 AM

so you say that the religouse sites are less scientific than the seculer scientific sites? thus you cannot believe them.
this has also been on the news.(the real Mt. Sinai).


It is not a matter of belief but of accountability. Science follows the scientific method of verification and falsification. Thus the religious sources are less reliabe because they have a strong non-scientific bias. They are interested in proving the miracles of the bible.

In fact, your original question: "is Bible history fact or fiction" can be answered by: "Bible history is a field of study". The study of bible history can be done with or without religious bias. Many good researchers are deeply religious but are able to conduct science.

Sadly, that is not true for most religious people - they are not good researchers and as such they rely on secondary sources. Most of these sources tend to be their usual religious sources or religious communities on the web.

Note I personally don't think there is such a thing as a good religious site about science. I do however think that there are good research done and papers published by religious people, in respected science journals.

#59 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 01:37 AM

It is not a matter of belief but of accountability. Science follows the scientific method of verification and falsification. Thus the religious sources are less reliabe because they have a strong non-scientific bias. They are interested in proving the miracles of the bible.


Well...you seem to be interested into disclaming the Bible..and disproving it, and question it to the point of you don't want to believe that it's honest. You need to debate with a true christian scientist....there are many times that the evolutionists leave in disarray...and still i have the question why do I see more evolutionists going to creation, than creationists going to evolution.

Science follows the scientific method of verification and falsification. Thus the religious sources are less reliabe because they have a strong non-scientific bias.


In other words..I was correct.

#60 Rincewind

Rincewind

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 02:11 AM

well...can you tell me that after you compare the both of them togeather? and tell me their similarities.

I believe that there is only one God/Supreme Being (I am a monotheist).

Have you not heard the parable of the three blind men and the elephant?

#61 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 02:28 AM

Well...you seem to be interested into disclaming the Bible..and disproving it, and question it to the point of you don't want to believe that it's honest.


No, I have no interest in disproving the bible. I see it as an important historical document, but not a history book. I don't blindly accept anything written in any book, nor should anyone else, scientific or non-scientific.

In other words..I was correct.


No, you were not. You are again trying to dodge the discussion by focusing on your (erroneous) interpretation of what I think and write.

You need to debate with a true christian scientist


I thought we were doing that here at Hypography all the time - there are several christian scientists here. However there are no true ID scientists here, because that is an oxymoron at the moment.

....there are many times that the evolutionists leave in disarray...and still i have the question why do I see more evolutionists going to creation, than creationists going to evolution.


Yet another attempt to dodge the discussion. And I assume you can back up this statement with some facts?

#62 Rincewind

Rincewind

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 152 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 02:35 AM

...and still i have the question why do I see more evolutionists going to creation, than creationists going to evolution...

Because you're only looking within the Creationist community.

#63 paultrr

paultrr

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 650 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 05:26 AM

Ignoring the Chariots of the gods line, Judaism tends to reject a literal interpretation of the Bible. Maimonides, for example, taught that when scientific evidence contradicts an understanding of the Bible, we must re-interpret that verse in accord with science.
Biblical maximalists, as a whole, assume its correctness unless evidence exsists otherwise and tend to interpret it literally. I would not include fundamentalists in this camp since they always see it as literal and correct. Biblical maximalists accept the findings of modern historical studies and archaeology whereas the fundamentalists would not. Then one has the minimalists who simply see it as religious myths, etc.

The early secular references like Tacitus on Jesus and Josephus on Jesus can be disputed, and with their discounting little extra-biblical support for Jesus' existence remains outside of the origin of christianity itself within the Roman empire and its own story telling and passing such down. The traditional date of Jesus' birth (midnight 24th December) and death (Easter) are taken from pre-existng pagan practices like the winter solstice and the fertility rites of the goddess Eostre and others.

Going further back, the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Yet, the Bible mentions Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The Historical record we have and can indirectly varify thus is in dispute with the Bible's own recorded history. Yet, we also have Sargon mentioned in Isaiah 20 as having captured Ashdod, which did exist. Sargon's palace was eventually discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. His capture of Ashdod was recorded on the palace walls. Fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were also found at Ashdod itself. Also, Ahab's participation in the Battle of Karkar is clearly documented in Assyrian chronology. So the question about how much is history does have an answer that can be discovered via scientific based means. Its part history and part myth and retelling of tribal story.

The fundamentalists position is not upheld by history itself. The minimualists position which would see almost everything as myth is itself historically incorect. However, there is also error in the maximalists position in assuming everything is real unless there is evidence against such. The only safe and sound position is one which allows the historic evidence to speak for itself. Also the Bible's own religion did not evolve in a vacuum. It has itself admixtures from the cultures its people arose in.

#64 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 05:43 AM

...the Bible's own religion did not evolve in a vacuum. It has itself admixtures from the cultures its people arose in.


A very good book on the subject is A History of God by Karen Armstrong.

#65 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 07:45 AM

I believe that there is only one God/Supreme Being (I am a monotheist).


Add Buddha into the group of God and Islam/Allah, add the gods of the Hindus and wickens while your at it.

No offence.

I heard of the perible.

#66 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 08:11 AM

Add Buddha into the group of God and Islam/Alla, add the gods of the Hindus and wickens while your at it.


Buddha was not a god, and Buddhism has no gods.

But I guess you have finished the debate now.

#67 eMTee

eMTee

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 08:16 AM

Add Buddha into the group of God and Islam/Alla, add the gods of the Hindus and wickens while your at it.

Buddha was not a god, and Buddhism has no gods.

You kind of misunderstood me. I ment exactly what I sayed. meaning, If you are going to say the god of the Bible is also the god of the Qu'ran...you might as well add all the rest of the gods of the world. But you are correct in your statment.

excuse me as I go off onto rabbit trail.

#68 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 01 May 2005 - 08:19 AM

You kind of misunderstood me. I ment exactly what I sayed.


Is there a point somewhere? Where do you want this discussion to go?