It is true that all ancient texts are heavily scrutinized for accuracy and authenticity. I'm not debating that. However, secular texts are given far more weight in legitimacy than religious texts, in my opinion. Most undergraduate history classes do not discuss textual criticism of the original sources. Ancient history is presented as undisputed fact in these classes. The life and teachings of Plato or Aristotle are given more credence than the authors that penned the Old Testament. In fact, many probably give more credence to Homer's Iliad than Moses (credited for writing the first 5 books of the Old Testament).
In sum, I believe there is a bias when secular scholars attemt to offer criticism of religious texts and its original sources.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Generally the supernatural aspects of historical stories do get discounted, and the religious bias gets considered in the writing (similarly to how national allegiances get considered). The Bible is partly used as a historical document, but it is very much seen that there are a lot of fictional aspects, because if isn't solely meant as a historical work, it is meant as a spiritual one, and there isn't any evidence for the supernatural claims.
In that way it is similar to the Iliad. Although I would say the Bible gets a lot more credit as a history than the Iliad.
The only parts of the Bible that secular historians would consider somewhat reliable in mapping a legitimate history of the Hebrew people would be the list of kings, including the reigns of David and Solomon. Also considered would be the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity of the Jewish people. They consider most other parts myth and legend.
Maybe in very poor quality undergrad classes, but that's nothing to do with proper History. Even people studying Classics or Literature rather than history know that we can't even be sure Homer existed, let alone treating the Iliad as some sort of historical work, which I am not aware of anyone doing (people trying to find the 'real' Troy were considered nutjobs throughout the centuries).
Plato and Aristotle were philosophers, not historians. Any credence in what they say is simply based on people agreeing with their logic. That's nothing to do with historical sources.
Meanwhile, there is very serious historical study attributed to the authorship of the Old Testament Bible- I'm not a classicist but even I have run into that- the P source and the J source etc, likely writing centuries apart. The Moses thing is given no credence because there's no evidence for it.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
At this point it's like watching the "Little Engine That Could" struggle and struggle and you just want the thing to succeed for the ordeal to be over.
You chug on.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
So, which parts.of the Bible would you like to be considered reliable, and which parts do you accept would at least need one more source to corroborate?
Christianity is NOT a blind faith contrary to what many people think. It is the only religion in the world which can prove itself. There's tons of different types of proof-historical, scientific, witnesses, etc,- that verify it is based on fact.
__________________ Darwin's theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.-Dr. David Berlinski, Philosophy
Most people believe Evolution not because they themselves are dumb, but cause they trust the "experts" who are feeding them evolutionary fast food, and so they don't bother questioning whether or not it's true.
Last edited by Star428 on Dec 14th, 2015 at 04:53 PM
At this point I'm not sure you understand what "proof" even truly means.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
One's a flesh and blood mortal human, and the other is a deity/son-of-a-deity/ancient fairy tale. I fully believe that only one of those may have actually existed.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
They were called wraiths back then, neither living nor dead.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 14th, 2015 12:57 PM
