The Bible's Buried Secrets

[geo]

The New International Version includes the word history three times

Ezra 4:15
so that a search may be made in the archives of your predecessors. In these records you will find that this city is a rebellious city, troublesome to kings and provinces, a place with a long history of sedition.
Ezra 4:19
I issued an order and a search was made, and it was found that this city has a long history of revolt against kings and has been a place of rebellion and sedition.
Acts 17:26
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

The word "history" to the ancients might have meant something very different than the word as it is used today. Much depends on the translation and context.

The idea of history as a factual undertaking is probably new to the modern era. Two thousand years ago, the primitives had no notion for accurate, unbiased historical observation which really isn't possible anyway. We understand today that history is usually written by the victors and presents a biased perspective. Only with a scholar's eye can we go back in time and attempt to interpret the history from a more impartial and modern context. No reasonable or informed person is ever going to say the Bible is historically accurate and certainly not literally true.

We've discussed on other threads recently that it seems likely that in a pre-scientific world, people would have not have taken a literal view of the stories that were handed down to them from other cultures and other time periods. Just as DWill says, It wouldn't have bothered the ancients to have two versions of the creation story.

[Dawn]

The idea of history as a factual undertaking is probably new to the modern era. Two thousand years ago, the primitives had no notion for accurate, unbiased historical observation which really isn't possible anyway.

Wow... now I'm starting to wonder who is the more naive, the 'primitives' or the modern men.
The 'ancients' were no 'dumb bunnies' just because they didn't have the likes of 'modern men' to educate them. It would be good to do a little more ancient history reading and a little less modern man listening imo

[Robert Tulip]

Herodotus and Thucydides are viewed as the fathers of history. Herodotus tended to just accept lies that people told him, while Thucydides founded the idea of history as a scientific discipline, attempting to provide an objective account of events. Biblical narratives are far more mythological, rendering oral history into wishful accounts.

[Robert Tulip]

From Acts 17:26 "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands"

we can see this account of history is incorrect, because it assumes that all humanity is descended from Adam.

[stahrwe]

The idea of history as a factual undertaking is probably new to the modern era. Two thousand years ago, the primitives had no notion for accurate, unbiased historical observation which really isn't possible anyway. We understand today that history is usually written by the victors and presents a biased perspective. Only with a scholar's eye can we go back in time and attempt to interpret the history from a more impartial and modern context. No reasonable or informed person is ever going to say the Bible is historically accurate and certainly not literally true.

What a marvelous conceited fellow you are -primitives ---really?
No nothing for accuracy? How about 8 chapters of geneaology?
You think modern histories are unbiased and accurate?

We've discussed on other threads recently that it seems likely that in a pre-scientific world, people would have not have taken a literal view of the stories that were handed down to them from other cultures and other time periods. Just as DWill says, It wouldn't have bothered the ancients to have two versions of the creation story.

It didn't bother the 'ancients' and it doesn't bother the moderns because there are not two creation stories. Those who advance that are clearly unversed in the Bible. Genesis 1 is an executive summary. Genesis 2 is a detailed account of the creation of man, a drill down if you will.

[geo]

Herodotus and Thucydides are viewed as the fathers of history. Herodotus tended to just accept lies that people told him, while Thucydides founded the idea of history as a scientific discipline, attempting to provide an objective account of events. Biblical narratives are far more mythological, rendering oral history into wishful accounts.

I was relating more to the creation and flood myths which were passed down from a pre-scientific world. Also, Greek civilization was quite a bit more advanced than that of ancient Israel, wasn't it? I suspect the word "history" may have had different connotations then, for that particular culture. As we discussed on the Joseph Campbell thread, the ancients might not have been taken their stories so literally. That's a later aberration.

But anyway I was just passing by.

[geo]

The idea of history as a factual undertaking is probably new to the modern era. Two thousand years ago, the primitives had no notion for accurate, unbiased historical observation which really isn't possible anyway. We understand today that history is usually written by the victors and presents a biased perspective. Only with a scholar's eye can we go back in time and attempt to interpret the history from a more impartial and modern context. No reasonable or informed person is ever going to say the Bible is historically accurate and certainly not literally true.

What a marvelous conceited fellow you are -primitives ---really?
No nothing for accuracy? How about 8 chapters of geneaology?
You think modern histories are unbiased and accurate?

Yes, I was mistaken about the time frame. Many of the stories in the Bible are far older than two thousand years. That's what I'm talking about. And I'm sure quite a lot of the biblical history is accurate. No reason to doubt that.

[Frank 013]

Stahrwe
You may question the stories but you can't disprove them.

Wow! Did I just read this!?! this has got to be the dumbest thing believers are bound to say...

There are a great many things that cannot be disproven… that is absolutely no reason that they should be taken seriously. In fact a great many things that cannot be disproven should NOT be taken seriously… FSM, orbiting teapots, magical pink unicorns on Venus, disappearing jellybeans behind trees, the matrix… the list goes on and as you may have seen, there is a pattern here… all fictional! If not being able to disprove a claim is the best evidence for said claim's existence, than I feel very comfortable not believing until new evidence surfaces confirming one side or the other.

The FACT that all evidence to date points to the biblical myths being false is just something to be ignored I suppose?

Well according to stahrwe and Dawn anyway.

Later

[Robert Tulip]

Greek civilization was quite a bit more advanced than that of ancient Israel, wasn't it? I suspect the word "history" may have had different connotations then, for that particular culture. As we discussed on the Joseph Campbell thread, the ancients might not have been taken their stories so literally. That's a later aberration.

But anyway I was just passing by.

Hi Geo, yes, you are right that Greek civilization was more advanced than Israel. Greece is seen as the cradle of civilization because they founded philosophy and logic. Greek thinkers from Plato and Aristotle introduced the scientific method of reliance on evidence as the basis of opinion, or at least revived it from the then ancient glory days of the pyramids of Egypt. Israel was quite primitive by comparison, holding to absurd metaphysical and magical concepts of God. The Greeks were metaphysical, but they mostly sought to make their speculation compatible with observation and reason. Their advanced skills in mathematics and logic are why the Greeks were so dynamic, enabling Alexander to conquer Asia. This practical objectivity then informed the Roman Empire.

You are right that literalism was a later aberration. Stories of Gods were universally understood as allegory for nature. Only with the rise of the evil Christian dogma of literal truth did allegory come to be persecuted. Now after what Yeats called nearly twenty centuries of stony sleep, the modern world can hardly begin to comprehend the natural allegorical vision of myth.

I mentioned above the misuse of the word 'history' in the Book of Acts. Thucydides would have blushed bright crimson to have his scientific attitude to evidence corrupted by such a banal claim as that everyone on earth is descended from Adam, and that this is historical.

[stahrwe]

Stahrwe
You may question the stories but you can't disprove them.

Wow! Did I just read this!?! this has got to be the dumbest thing believers are bound to say...

There are a great many things that cannot be disproven… that is absolutely no reason that they should be taken seriously. In fact a great many things that cannot be disproven should NOT be taken seriously… FSM, orbiting teapots, magical pink unicorns on Venus, disappearing jellybeans behind trees, the matrix… the list goes on and as you may have seen, there is a pattern here… all fictional! If not being able to disprove a claim is the best evidence for said claim's existence, than I feel very comfortable not believing until new evidence surfaces confirming one side or the other.

The FACT that all evidence to date points to the biblical myths being false is just something to be ignored I suppose?

Well according to stahrwe and Dawn anyway.

Later

Don't panic, you read it correctly and you responded correctly too with the proper canned response sequence: sarcasm, followed by diversion to obvious fantasy and an accusation of myth with regard to the Bible.

Of course flying spaghetti monsters, unicorns, etc. are fantasy objects or creature which can be dismissed as such due to our understanding of the origin and no supporting documentation. That is not true for the Bible. You fuss and fume and sputter but the Bible remains there as a testimony to God. Your only recourse is to throw every accusation you can at it in an attempt to discredit it, if not in fact, at least to your own satisfaction and you, and many others are successful in that. But your success must be tempered with the admission that you refuse to study the object of your contempt.