Historical vs Religious Interpretations

[Ella S.]

Are you one of those expert?
I really asked the question based on what you said in your previous post.
You said... if something has not been evidenced through the proper methods, then there is no good reason to conclude that it is true. It is only a justified belief if it can be demonstrated through a logical analysis of empirical evidence, or deduced relative to a set of axioms.

There is more agreement in history and archaeology than there is in theology and for a good reason; the conclusions of these fields are usually restricted to what we can reasonably conclude based on what we actually know, rather than formed based on a pre-existing assumption that a certain scripture is correct and can be interpreted through an unproven medium like the Holy Spirit.

I'm asking you, not on my behalf, but for you... how do you... or the expert, determine that an opinion of fellow experts is not based on any "pre-existing" assumption that an idea is correct, and is a "reasonable conclusion"?
Perhaps you answered by saying that you choose to believe which seems more reasonable. Not sure. Could you confirm?
The other experts are doing the same, so I am wondering what is the difference?

To explain further... you likely hear of scientists accusing other scientists of not being scientists, or not using the proper methods, have you?
In other words, they are saying that these experts are promoting their ideas as science.
Both are claiming however, to be using the proper methods, and doing real science.


You said something that interests me though.
Unless you're an expert in that field, then you shouldn't form conclusions about what there is no expert consensus on...
That seems to harmonize with an earlier statement... However, if something has not been evidenced through the proper methods, then there is no good reason to conclude that it is true.

I think what many here have been saying, including @3rdAngel. is basically the same thing... only, on the other foot.
I'm thinking of two scriptures... Matthew 13:10-16, and 2 Corinthians 3:1-3
What these scripture draw to our attention is that 1) God's people are experts in the field of study on the scriptures - not merely anyone that professes to be, and 2) God authorizes them by means of holy spirit, so they don't rely on human wisdom from the world to recommend them.

That's why I referenced that scripture in Corinthians.
The wisdom of this world, which is foolishness with God, cannot be used to examine spiritual things, and never will.
You might say, 'but how then can we determine if it's true'?
You can, but it requires you to do what you recommend... if something has not been evidenced through the proper methods... Unless you're an expert in that field...

It can only be evidenced through the proper methods... Not what we think.
One qualified expert, by the name of Paul, said...
(1 Corinthians 2:14-16) 14 But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. 15 However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.

How does one become an expert in spiritual matters - that is, things belonging to God?
Hope you understood.

None of this is really saying anything. You're merely saying that you view the religious interpretations of scripture to come from a place of higher expertise than historical interpretations, but you aren't giving any reason for why that's the case.

The historical method does not rely on assumptions or axioms, and it is self-correcting. Conclusions drawn in history are drawn on evidence; the historians put forward their evidence and the arguments based on that evidence which lead to a particular conclusion.

In light of that, if you are going to say that the religious interpretation is also based on evidence and self-correcting, then what is your evidence that the Holy Spirit guides these interpretations? At the very least, how can you tell which interpretations are guided by the Holy Spirit and which are not?

We can analyze the methods of historians to see whether their arguments are sound or based off of proper historical methodology. How do you analyze whether a given position in a theological interpretation of scripture genuinely comes from God, rather than merely people claiming to speak for God?

 

[pearl]

We can analyze the methods of historians to see whether their arguments are sound or based off of proper historical methodology. How do you analyze whether a given position in a theological interpretation of scripture genuinely comes from God, rather than merely people claiming to speak for God?

Since God does not 'speak' words, the words are human. The problem is that people cannot except that the Bible reflects the theology of its authors.

 

[nPeace]

None of this is really saying anything. You're merely saying that you view the religious interpretations of scripture to come from a place of higher expertise than historical interpretations, but you aren't giving any reason for why that's the case.

The historical method does not rely on assumptions or axioms, and it is self-correcting. Conclusions drawn in history are drawn on evidence; the historians put forward their evidence and the arguments based on that evidence which lead to a particular conclusion.

In light of that, if you are going to say that the religious interpretation is also based on evidence and self-correcting, then what is your evidence that the Holy Spirit guides these interpretations? At the very least, how can you tell which interpretations are guided by the Holy Spirit and which are not?

We can analyze the methods of historians to see whether their arguments are sound or based off of proper historical methodology. How do you analyze whether a given position in a theological interpretation of scripture genuinely comes from God, rather than merely people claiming to speak for God?

Fair question.
Though there are many, I will give one.
However, would you mind answering my question.
You haven't answered, but basically said the historians put forward their evidence and the arguments based on that evidence which lead to a particular conclusion.

There is no one particular conclusion. Or am I missing something.

 

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ For me, it depends on if you believe the scriptures are Gods' Words and can be trusted or not. If you do not believe they are God's Words then you will not believe them. However, there is a lot of historical references in the bible in reference to the Jewish people and the early Church that have been verified though history and archeology. Keep in mind that the sciences also do not have all the answers and there can be many knowledge gaps in both the historical records and archeology. Another words just because something is not yet found in archeology and history sources, does not necessarily mean that something did not take place. It only means it has not been found through these methods of verification.

Your response here...

Of course. However, if something has not been evidenced through the proper methods, then there is no good reason to conclude that it is true. It is only a justified belief if it can be demonstrated through a logical analysis of empirical evidence, or deduced relative to a set of axioms.

Not necessarily. As posted above in the post you just agreed with. If a source like the bible for example which is an old written source of history has a record of historical events being verified by other sources of historical records and archeology than there is nothing from stopping it being considered as a reliable source that can be trusted. As posted earlier, the sciences also do not have all the answers and there can be many knowledge gaps in both the historical records and archeology that may not be able to verify what is written in the bible. Another words just because something is not yet found in archeology and history sources, does not necessarily mean that something did not take place of something is not true. It only means it has not been found through these methods of verification. If a source has a history of being able to be verified through empirical evidence like the bible, than it has record in my view of being trustworthy. Because the bible has a record of proven accuracy verified through empirical evidence in the past it has a record of being trustworthy even if the science cannot verify everything and there are knowledge gaps to support verification.

There is more agreement in history and archaeology than there is in theology and for a good reason; the conclusions of these fields are usually restricted to what we can reasonably conclude based on what we actually know, rather than formed based on a pre-existing assumption that a certain scripture is correct and can be interpreted through an unproven medium like the Holy Spirit.

Once again, knowledge gaps in science in my opinion do not prove something is true or something is not true. It just means that you are not able to prove something is true or not true through that method of verification because it has not been discovered or cannot be tested for.

Take Care.

 

[Ella S.]

If a source like the bible for example which is an old written source of history has a record of historical events being verified by other sources of historical records and archeology than there is nothing from stopping it being considered as a reliable source that can be trusted.

Many historical and archaeological findings and interpretations contradict what the Bible says on a number of topics, which is why I began this thread to begin with. If their agreement is enough to consider the Bible reliable, would their disagreement be enough to consider the Bible unreliable?

As posted earlier, the sciences also do not have all the answers and there can be many knowledge gaps in both the historical records and archeology that may not be able to verify what is written in the bible. Another words just because something is not yet found in archeology and history sources, does not necessarily mean that something did not take place of something is not true. It only means it has not been found through these methods of verification.

This is an Argument from Ignorance, which is an informal fallacy. Just because the sciences can't answer something doesn't mean that an "other way of knowing" can. If you can demonstrate this, then it will no longer be a fallacious argument.

Of course I agree that it's possible that archaeology and history are wrong or incomplete, but that on its own does not make religious interpretations of scripture more likely to be accurate.

If a source has a history of being able to be verified through empirical evidence like the bible, than it has record in my view of being trustworthy. Because the bible has a record of proven accuracy verified through empirical evidence in the past it has a record of being trustworthy even if the science cannot verify everything and there are knowledge gaps to support verification.

Once again, knowledge gaps in science in my opinion do not prove something is true or something is not true. It just means that you are not able to prove something is true or not true through that method of verification because it has not been discovered or cannot be tested for.

This is a rational position, and I appreciate the insight. It's also misinformed. The Bible has demonstrated itself to be extremely unreliable as a historical source, at least outside of the opinions of Christian historians who graduated from theological universities.

Much of that has to deal with the Tanakh, which even many Jews openly admit is more a collection of folklore about their understanding of God rather than a trustworthy historical account. However, there are a few issues with the New Testament as well, such as its depiction of the Roman justice system and the census taken during Jesus's birth.

 

[Ella S.]

Fair question.
Though there are many, I will give one.
However, would you mind answering my question.
You haven't answered, but basically said the historians put forward their evidence and the arguments based on that evidence which lead to a particular conclusion.

There is no one particular conclusion. Or am I missing something.

Your question is not relevant to the discussion of this thread. My question is what makes religious interpretations more suitable in their expertise, not why you dismiss historical interpretations. Unless your reason for dismissing historical interpretations is because there is a flaw with them that religious interpretations do not share, talking about it is only going to derail the whole thread.

Suffice to say, we could have a whole other thread on the topic of the historical method and its reliability, but that's really not a conversation I care about having. I have no interest in arguing with pseudo-skeptical positions.

 

[nPeace]

Your question is not relevant to the discussion of this thread. My question is what makes religious interpretations more suitable in their expertise, not why you dismiss historical interpretations. Unless your reason for dismissing historical interpretations is because there is a flaw with them that religious interpretations do not share, talking about it is only going to derail the whole thread.

Suffice to say, we could have a whole other thread on the topic of the historical method and its reliability, but that's really not a conversation I care about having. I have no interest in arguing with pseudo-skeptical positions.

No. It is very relevant... and here is why.
When you have contradicting opinions, among historians, scholars, scientists... which is more reliable?

Here is a real situation that illustrates the point.
*** it-1 p. 155 Archaeology ***
As an illustration, the Bible record states that King Sennacherib of Assyria was killed by his two sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, and was succeeded to the throne by another son, Esar-haddon. (2Ki 19:36, 37) Yet, a Babylonian chronicle stated that, on the 20th of Tebeth, Sennacherib was killed by his son in a revolt. Both Berossus, Babylonian priest of the third century B.C.E., and Nabonidus, Babylonian king of the sixth century B.C.E., gave the same account, to the effect that Sennacherib was assassinated by only one of his sons. However, in a more recently discovered fragment of the Prism of Esar-haddon, the son who succeeded Sennacherib, Esar-haddon clearly states that his brothers (plural) revolted and killed their father and then took flight. Commenting on this, Philip Biberfeld, in Universal Jewish History (1948, Vol. I, p. 27), says: “The Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonid, and Berossus were mistaken; only the Biblical account proved to be correct. It was confirmed in all the minor details by the inscription of Esarhaddon and proved to be more accurate regarding this event of Babylonian-Assyrian history than the Babylonian sources themselves. This is a fact of utmost importance for the evaluation of even contemporary sources not in accord with Biblical tradition.”

You see, the Bible always proves to be reliable.
Even when evidence for particular things are not yet found, as @3rdAngel is repeatedly pointed out.
It's safe to say "not yet found" because time and again that evidence turns up later, and vindicates scripture.
Bible critics have been proven wrong a thousand times, and in most cases this hasn’t humbled them or changed their opinion toward Scripture.


However, we do not sit waiting for that evidence, because 1) we have already establish the reliability of scripture, by the tons of verifiable evidence found... both internally (the strongest) and externally, and 2) no amount of evidence will convince critics bent on opposing the Bible... as referenced earlier - 1 John 5:19.

This brings me to answering the question you asked regarding different interpretations.
Since we establish the Bible as a reliable source of truth - the word of God, we use that as the basis for determining whom are really led by holy spirit.

As one expert put it... "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness. . ." (2 Timothy 3:16)

So, for example, Jesus said... "By this all will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35)

Using the scriptures as a measuring rod, one can identify those professing to be, from those who really are.
Another is John 15:8. . . My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples. 

 

[Valjean]

Biblical interpretation is interpretation of folklore; of unfounded stories and claims.
Historical interpretation is interpretation of evidenced facts.

Either method can reach false interpretations. New evidence is always being uncovered, and new testing methods are discovered, so historical interpretation is always being updated, clarified and corrected.

Biblical interpretation or apologetics, on the other hand, works from an immutable source, and cites new discoveries only when they reflect a favored interpretation. Contradictory facts seem to effect no change in orthodox doctrine.

 

[Ella S.]

No. It is very relevant... and here is why.
When you have contradicting opinions, among historians, scholars, scientists... which is more reliable?

Here is a real situation that illustrates the point.
*** it-1 p. 155 Archaeology ***
As an illustration, the Bible record states that King Sennacherib of Assyria was killed by his two sons, Adrammelech and Sharezer, and was succeeded to the throne by another son, Esar-haddon. (2Ki 19:36, 37) Yet, a Babylonian chronicle stated that, on the 20th of Tebeth, Sennacherib was killed by his son in a revolt. Both Berossus, Babylonian priest of the third century B.C.E., and Nabonidus, Babylonian king of the sixth century B.C.E., gave the same account, to the effect that Sennacherib was assassinated by only one of his sons. However, in a more recently discovered fragment of the Prism of Esar-haddon, the son who succeeded Sennacherib, Esar-haddon clearly states that his brothers (plural) revolted and killed their father and then took flight. Commenting on this, Philip Biberfeld, in Universal Jewish History (1948, Vol. I, p. 27), says: “The Babylonian Chronicle, Nabonid, and Berossus were mistaken; only the Biblical account proved to be correct. It was confirmed in all the minor details by the inscription of Esarhaddon and proved to be more accurate regarding this event of Babylonian-Assyrian history than the Babylonian sources themselves. This is a fact of utmost importance for the evaluation of even contemporary sources not in accord with Biblical tradition.”

You see, the Bible always proves to be reliable.
Even when evidence for particular things are not yet found, as @3rdAngel is repeatedly pointed out.
It's safe to say "not yet found" because time and again that evidence turns up later, and vindicates scripture.
Bible critics have been proven wrong a thousand times, and in most cases this hasn’t humbled them or changed their opinion toward Scripture.

Thank you, your response here has been very revealing. It seems that there's a concerted effort by Christian apologists to spread disinformation about the historical reliability of the Bible. I didn't realize how deep that was until now, although it makes sense given that most apologist universities have dedicated teams of Biblical historians.

Unfortunately, there is not much I can do to assist you here. Your approach to history is similar to a creationist approach to biology. I imagine there's too much misinformation to unravel in a single thread. It does help me understand the scope of the issue, though. I'm sorry you've been a victim to such an organized deception.

However, we do not sit waiting for that evidence, because 1) we have already establish the reliability of scripture, by the tons of verifiable evidence found... both internally (the strongest) and externally, and 2) no amount of evidence will convince critics bent on opposing the Bible... as referenced earlier - 1 John 5:19.

Yet, through your own cherry-picked example, you have demonstrated that this is not the case. With sufficient evidence for the historicity of the Biblical narrative, the relevant scholars acquiesce.

This brings me to answering the question you asked regarding different interpretations.
Since we establish the Bible as a reliable source of truth - the word of God, we use that as the basis for determining whom are really led by holy spirit.

As one expert put it... "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness. . ." (2 Timothy 3:16)

So, for example, Jesus said... "By this all will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves.” (John 13:35)

Using the scriptures as a measuring rod, one can identify those professing to be, from those who really are.
Another is John 15:8. . . My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples. 

In that sense, you are affirming the consequent. Rather than concluding the truth of the Bible, you affirm its truth in your premises. Indeed, it seems you view this sort of self-deception to be a virtue, which is yet another trick I see apologists using to keep Christians in their fold.

Thank you again. This discussion has been eye-opening.

 

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ If a source like the bible for example which is an old written source of history has a record of historical events being verified by other sources of historical records and archeology than there is nothing from stopping it being considered as a reliable source that can be trusted.

Your response here.

Many historical and archaeological findings and interpretations contradict what the Bible says on a number of topics, which is why I began this thread to begin with. If their agreement is enough to consider the Bible reliable, would their disagreement be enough to consider the Bible unreliable?

As posted from the beginning history can be re-written and changed depending who is writing it, and their motivation for doing so. So pointing to contradictions in history and historical and archeological knowledge gaps is not an argument to say that the bible is not reliable. It is often the history in my view that can be unreliable as well as some of the archeology if it is in contradiction to other historical references and archeology that are in support of what the bible says. So your argument here is a argument from ignorance which is a formal fallacy.

3rdAngel said: ↑ As posted earlier, the sciences also do not have all the answers and there can be many knowledge gaps in both the historical records and archeology that may not be able to verify what is written in the bible. Another words just because something is not yet found in archeology and history sources, does not necessarily mean that something did not take place or something is not true. It only means it has not been found through these methods of verification.

Your response here...

This is an Argument from Ignorance, which is an informal fallacy. Just because the sciences can't answer something doesn't mean that an "other way of knowing" can. If you can demonstrate this, then it will no longer be a fallacious argument. Of course I agree that it's possible that archaeology and history are wrong or incomplete, but that on its own does not make religious interpretations of scripture more likely to be accurate.

Actually I was not arguing from ignorance at all. I was simply making the observation that both History and archeology has its flaws and is not infallible and both have knowledge gaps and that these knowledge gaps and flaws are not an infallible method to determine if the scriptures are true and what is not true. Getting back to your OP question though. If one believes what the bible says the answer is no. You will never find God through the ways of the world because according to the scriptures the bible is not from this world and is against the teachings of the world because the world does not know or recognize God.

3rdAngel said: ↑ If a source has a history of being able to be verified through empirical evidence like the bible, than it has record in my view of being trustworthy. Because the bible has a record of proven accuracy verified through empirical evidence in the past it has a record of being trustworthy even if the science cannot verify everything and there are knowledge gaps to support verification. Once again, knowledge gaps in science in my opinion do not prove something is true or something is not true. It just means that you are not able to prove something is true or not true through that method of verification because it has not been discovered or cannot be tested for.

Your response here...

This is a rational position, and I appreciate the insight. It's also misinformed. The Bible has demonstrated itself to be extremely unreliable as a historical source, at least outside of the opinions of Christian historians who graduated from theological universities. Much of that has to deal with the Tanakh, which even many Jews openly admit is more a collection of folklore about their understanding of God rather than a trustworthy historical account. However, there are a few issues with the New Testament as well, such as its depiction of the Roman justice system and the census taken during Jesus's birth.

Sorry I disagree. The bible has not been demonstrated to be an extremely unreliable historical source. That is a misinformed position and statement. Many things in the bible are supported by both historical evidence and archeological evidence. I am sorry I do not believe your statement here is factual at all. What some people think and what others disagree with is not support for what is true and what is not true it is just not a consensus of opinion. Lets not pretend that there is no historical and archeological evidence in support of the bible. That opinion is simply not truthful.

Take Care.

 

[Valjean]

Sorry I disagree. The bible has not been demonstrated to be an extremely unreliable historical source. That is a misinformed position and statement. Many things in the bible are supported by both historical evidence and archeological evidence. I am sorry I do not believe your statement here is factual at all. What some people think and what others disagree with is not support for what is true and what is not true it is just not a consensus of opinion. Lets not pretend that there is no historical and archeological evidence in support of the bible. That opinion is simply not truthful.

Sorry, but little besides some geography and some historical references is objectively verifiable, and even so there demonstrable errors here, too. The flood? Moses? First-born condemned? Egyptian plagues? the exodus? the years in the desert? Augustian census? Multiple miracles? These are not verified. Moreover, most of them would have left evidence or records by disinterested parties, yet there is nothing. We don't even know who authored the books of the Bible.

 

[nPeace]

Thank you, your response here has been very revealing. It seems that there's a concerted effort by Christian apologists to spread disinformation about the historical reliability of the Bible. I didn't realize how deep that was until now, although it makes sense given that most apologist universities have dedicated teams of Biblical historians.

Unfortunately, there is not much I can do to assist you here. Your approach to history is similar to a creationist approach to biology. I imagine there's too much misinformation to unravel in a single thread. It does help me understand the scope of the issue, though. I'm sorry you've been a victim to such an organized deception.

That's quite a vague response... other than the glaring attack the motive / poster fallacy.
However, I'm not going to resort to the only defense skeptics have - that of claiming you are just "one blind, misguided dude".

Yet, through your own cherry-picked example, you have demonstrated that this is not the case. With sufficient evidence for the historicity of the Biblical narrative, the relevant scholars acquiesce.

Here too... I won't resort to accusing you of cherry picking, while ignoring anything that can be used as valid evidence.

In that sense, you are affirming the consequent. Rather than concluding the truth of the Bible, you affirm its truth in your premises. Indeed, it seems you view this sort of self-deception to be a virtue, which is yet another trick I see apologists using to keep Christians in their fold.

Thank you again. This discussion has been eye-opening.

Here also. I won't resort to the finger pointing exercise.... you you you you this, you that.
That's pointless.
Give me an actual response worthy of addressing. The rules here are, "Address the post. Not the poster."

...but, maybe you are unable to? That's okay.
Thank you.

 

[nPeace]

Your response here.

As posted from the beginning history can be re-written and changed depending who is writing it, and their motivation for doing so. So pointing to contradictions in history and historical and archeological knowledge gaps is not an argument to say that the bible is not reliable. It is often the history in my view that can be unreliable as well as some of the archeology if it is in contradiction to other historical references and archeology that are in support of what the bible says. So your argument here is a argument from ignorance which is a formal fallacy.

Your response here...

Actually I was not arguing from ignorance at all. I was simply making the observation that both History and archeology has its flaws and is not infallible and both have knowledge gaps and that these knowledge gaps and flaws are not an infallible method to determine if the scriptures are true and what is not true. Getting back to your OP question though. If one believes what the bible says the answer is no. You will never find God through the ways of the world because according to the scriptures the bible is not from this world and is against the teachings of the world because the world does not know or recognize God.


Sorry I disagree. The bible has not been demonstrated to be an extremely unreliable historical source. That is a misinformed position and statement. Many things in the bible are supported by both historical evidence and archeological evidence. I am sorry I do not believe your statement here is factual at all. What some people think and what others disagree with is not support for what is true and what is not true it is just not a consensus of opinion. Lets not pretend that there is no historical and archeological evidence in support of the bible. That opinion is simply not truthful.

Take Care.

You know what is interesting.
When it comes to the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and others' annals, no one questions them. They accept them as historical.
When it comes to the Bible, the position changes.
Yet, in many many many cases, the Bible has been verified to be the one that was most accurate... repeatedly.

The example, I presented, is one that should cause any skeptic to think twice about the position they hold... but it won't, and we know why.

The Babylonian chronicle is taken by these same historians as reliable, yet it was not accurate in what it said.
Another witness - guess from where? Not Babylon, but Assyria - stood up, and said, "Look! the Babylonians are wrong. Here is the truth."
The Bible was correct all along.

Now, here it is, the skeptics call for outside sources to confirm the Bible. We provide that... repeatedly.
When it comes to Babylon... "Uh uh. We accept. No need for external sources."
Well... an outside source contradicted the internal source. They are forced to accept it. Not willingly... but there it is.

It truly amazes me @3rdAngel.
...but then, it shouldn't. Romans 1:18 Can't feel sorry for them.

Things like this don't make any difference... to them, or us.
New inscriptions about King Hezekiah found in Jerusalem
Archaeologists identify inscriptions on stones from the 8th century BC that match the biblical account. They describe them as “the earliest manuscripts of the Bible”.

After years of research, Israeli archaeologists have deciphered inscriptions on stone tablets found in Jerusalem that support the existence of the 8th century B.C. biblical King Hezekiah.

For us, they serve to add to the evidence we already have, but whether they find evidence that can be or cannot be found, means nothing... and changes nothing.

We don't expect they will ever find the force that moved the waters of the Red sea back, or the footprints of Jesus, on the waters, but that's what they want. Imagine that. Lol.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You know what is interesting.
When it comes to the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and others' annals, no one questions them. They accept them as historical.

You really need to do some reading.

 

[nPeace]

You really need to do some reading.

Okay. That's a good thing. I'll try to do more than I am currently doing. Thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Okay. That's a good thing. I'll try to do more than I am currently doing. Thanks.

You may wish to start with the well known and, according to you, presumable unquestioned, annal known as the Sumerian Kings List (SKL).

 

[nPeace]

You may wish to start with the well known and, according to you, presumable unquestioned, annal known as the Sumerian Kings List (SKL).

Thank you for that.
The Sumerian King List (abbreviated SKL) or Chronicle of the One Monarchy is an ancient literary composition written in Sumerian that was likely created and redacted to legitimize the claims to power of various city-states and kingdoms in southern Mesopotamia during the late third and early second millennium BC.

Is this a good start?
Two things.

• 1) The article says these were likely created and redacted to legitimize the claims to power of various city-states and kingdoms in southern Mesopotamia during the late third and early second millennium BC.

In your opinion, is that a fair usage of the word "likely", or do you think the authors made a mistake, and should really have said "definitely were"?

• 2) If you have a number of different sources from competing or rival nations, referring to the same event, and in some cases agreeing on primary details, is that a good reason to conclude that the event actually took place, and is indeed a historical event?

For example. Primary detail: Sources A, B, C - This king was assassinated. Secondary detail: Source A - The butler did it. Source B - No. The wife did it. Source C - The wife and butler did it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thank you for that.

Not a problem. You might wish to add to your new reading list presumably historically accurate (according to you) Enuma Elish.

 

[nPeace]

Not a problem. You might wish to add to your new reading list presumably historically accurate (according to you) Enuma Elish.

No. I don't need to. Not when they are the opinions of self assumed smart people, some of whom don't respond to simple questions, but instead promote their ideas as facts everyone must accept.

Thanks you... but no thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No. I don't need to.

As you wish.