Historical vs Religious Interpretations

[Subduction Zone]

We both know that's not the truth.
I'm not the one calling expert historians, non expert historians because they accept the Bible's authenticity.
...but what else can we expect from atheistic world views.

Adios.

I am unaware of such historians. The experts tend to agree that the Bible is not literally true. It is refuted far too often. I am curious as to who you think is an "expert historian". What primary sources do they publish in?

 

[nPeace]

I will speak that when it comes to the Bible, neither the theological nor the Biblical historical narratives are reliable. The first is primarily based on apriori faith. The second is unreliable because it is trying to achieve to much using too little. In no other topic in history apart from Biblical history or historical Jesus are there hundreds of 1000 page tomes based on so little good quality evidence. The reason is there is a lot of religiously driven interest in the topic that has made this inconceivably narrow subfield of history have a life of it's own. These historical writings are filled with plausible but ultimately unverifiable conjectures as must be if you want to say so much based on so little. Just because a (possibly historical) obscure Jewish person started a heretical Jewish religious movement that later became a large religion does not mean that there is lot of evidence regarding his life. There isn't. That is normal. There are entire Roman emperors for whom we know very little from their contemporary source that is reliable. So what we know is this
Jesus probably existed and somehow inspired a heretical Jewish sect who considered him to be a messiah of some sort. They wrote stuff about him whose reliability is difficult to evaluate.
The end.

Actually no. The Biblical accounts are more reliable and verifiable than the conjectured evolution theory which many of you consider a fact.
I can prove it. It's all there, along with the biased opinions against it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually no. The Biblical accounts are more reliable and verifiable than the conjectured evolution theory which many of you consider a fact.
I can prove it. It's all there, along with the biased opinions against it.

Now that is rather delusional to say the least.

You can't prove it. This is just a very weak false front that you are putting on.

 

[Hawkins]

It seems that historical and archaeological interpretations of various texts can often be dramatically different from the religious interpretations of these texts.

You see this most commonly exemplified in debates like the one between historian Bart Ehrman and theologian William Lane Craig on whether Jesus was resurrected from the dead or not. However, this is not solely relegated to Western religions.

Vedic texts and Buddhist sutras are also filled with accounts that historians find dubious. There is even Taoist folklore about Laozi correcting Confucius, even though they lived too far apart to have known one another.

For those who believe the claims of religious authorities over historical consensus, why?

Is there a way for the two approaches to work together to provide insight into these texts, without contradiction?

History is a human testimony on historical human activities.
True religion is a human testimony on historical encounters of God and His activities.

Both are the same methodology in terms of conveying a truth.

 

[Ella S.]

History is a human testimony on historical human activities.
True religion is a human testimony on historical encounters of God and His activities.

Both are the same methodology in terms of conveying a truth.

Then do you believe that historians can use the historical method to investigate the truth of the life of Moses, the life of Jesus, and so on? What if historical findings seem to contradict scripture, or at least the way scripture is traditionally interpreted?

 

[Hawkins]

Then do you believe that historians can use the historical method to investigate the truth of the life of Moses, the life of Jesus, and so on? What if historical findings seem to contradict scripture, or at least the way scripture is traditionally interpreted?

History is written by a historian who gathered what is credible to him as a testimony from an eyewitness. That's the nature of what history is. Ultimately it is a testimony from an eyewitness, but later on gathered by an authorized historian.

The process is like this,
A prophet is a chosen eyewitness. His story is found to be credible by Israel, acting as an authority thus records the story of this prophet. A prophet is called a prophet simply because he can tell the short future for Israel to examine his credibility as being claimed from God. Humans lack the ability to tell a future, God thus authenticate an eyewitness to tell the future for Israel (as God's chosen people) to reckon him and his story.

That's how it works.

 

[Valjean]

Actually no. The Biblical accounts are more reliable and verifiable than the conjectured evolution theory which many of you consider a fact.
I can prove it. It's all there, along with the biased opinions against it.

They are not. Many are contradictory. Many are demonsrably wrong. What are these verifications you speak of? Testimony is not verification, especially second hand hearsay.
You keep making claims like this, but we're yet to see any of this proof, or even objective evidence.

 

[Valjean]

History is a human testimony on historical human activities.
True religion is a human testimony on historical encounters of God and His activities.

Both are the same methodology in terms of conveying a truth.

No. One relies on objective evidence, the other on folklore.

 

[Valjean]

History is written by a historian who gathered what is credible to him as a testimony from an eyewitness. That's the nature of what history is. Ultimately it is a testimony from an eyewitness, but later on gathered by an authorized historian.

The process is like this,
A prophet is a chosen eyewitness. His story is found to be credible by Israel, acting as an authority thus records the story of this prophet. A prophet is called a prophet simply because he can tell the short future for Israel to examine his credibility as being claimed from God. Humans lack the ability to tell a future, God thus authenticate an eyewitness to tell the future for Israel (as God's chosen people) to reckon him and his story.

That's how it works.

It works more like this: A historian reads the scriptural claims, then looks for objective evidence, or corroborating claims by others. If one claim says 90% of the Egyptian population marched off into the desert, and that millions of them lived there for 40 years, this would have left hard evidence. It would have been written about all over the ancient world. Egypt would have collapsed. There would be archæological, demographic and written evidence in Egypt. It would have left the Sinai desert littered with bones and artifacts. Yet we have nothing; nothing but a story by an unknown author in an ancient book.

 

[Ella S.]

History is written by a historian who gathered what is credible to him as a testimony from an eyewitness. That's the nature of what history is. Ultimately it is a testimony from an eyewitness, but later on gathered by an authorized historian.

The process is like this,
A prophet is a chosen eyewitness. His story is found to be credible by Israel, acting as an authority thus records the story of this prophet. A prophet is called a prophet simply because he can tell the short future for Israel to examine his credibility as being claimed from God. Humans lack the ability to tell a future, God thus authenticate an eyewitness to tell the future for Israel (as God's chosen people) to reckon him and his story.

That's how it works.

What if a historian finds that a prophet's testimony is not credible?

 

[Valjean]

What if a historian finds that a prophet's testimony is not credible?

Broom. Rug.
Sweep.

 

[nPeace]

They are not. Many are contradictory. Many are demonsrably wrong. What are these verifications you speak of? Testimony is not verification, especially second hand hearsay.
You keep making claims like this, but we're yet to see any of this proof, or even objective evidence.

This is not true either. I keep providing this evidence, but you see, the atheist on here can't play hard ball... in fact the atheist everywhere.
Once they are confronted with the heavy stuff, they keep silent, disappear from the thread, and surface in another thread, singing the same song.

I keep challenging you, because I know that I got a bag full of bricks, and I just have to take one out, and off load, and off you go... again.

I'm tempted to repeat, but I've come to the conclusion that it's a waste of time. You don't want evidence. You just want to sing... the same old tune... over and over, and over... like a broken record.

I'll decide if to go for another brick. I'm tempted to... but you don't want me to. I know you don't. ...but challenge me. I'll point out when you flee this time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually no. The Biblical accounts are more reliable and verifiable than the conjectured evolution theory which many of you consider a fact.
I can prove it. It's all there, along with the biased opinions against it.

Then do it already. It better be good - there are mountains and mountains of evidence supporting evolution.

 

[nPeace]

Then do it already. It better be good - there are mountains and mountains of evidence supporting evolution.

It's bad enough hitting your head against a brick. It's worst striking it against granite.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's bad enough hitting your head against a brick. It's worst striking it against granite.

Be sure to let us know when you've got the evidence.
I want to believe as many true things as possible while not believing as many false things as possible.
In other words, I'm open to evidence for anything.

 

[nPeace]

Be sure to let us know when you've got the evidence.
I want to believe as many true things as possible while not believing as many false things as possible.
In other words, I'm open to evidence for anything.

LOL. Sure you are.

 

[SkepticThinker]

LOL. Sure you are.

Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

 

[nPeace]

Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

Did you change overnight?

 

[Valjean]

It's bad enough hitting your head against a brick. It's worst striking it against granite.

Does that mean you're going to continue making unevidenced claims?

Please post some evidence of your claims so we can critique it.

LOL. Sure you are.

Lot's of us are, and we've been asking you to back up your claims for years.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did you change overnight?

So yes, you're accusing me of dishonesty.

Well, I guess whatever you have to do to shirk your burden of proof, eh?