Originally posted by queeq
That is fiction, admittedly so by Brown himself. Plus he got his facts quite wrong as well, most of his 'facts' were fiction. Who said the Bible was written as fiction?
Come on, most of the stories in the OT are just that stories. They have meaning, but I would never take them literally.
Originally posted by queeq
Well, if these people really existed, why would you doubt the stories. Why if places and larger events took place, should you start picking and choosing what is true and what is not? And if you do, what standards are you gonna apply what line is true and what line is not?
Most good stories have real places but the people and what they did are fictional. The human face could not have started with two people.
Originally posted by queeq
Well, if these people really existed, why would you doubt the stories. Why if places and larger events took place, should you start picking and choosing what is true and what is not? And if you do, what standards are you gonna apply what line is true and what line is not?
I have a question, do you take everything in the Bible literally, or just the parts you happen to agree with/coincide with your agenda? If the latter, where do you draw the line and say "that's fiction; that's factual", when deciding between two or more unlikely scenarios?
Was there really a great flood and we're all descendants of just one man and his family? Did Moses factually part the sea? Was there a gigantic sea monster (Leviathan) that God personally slew? Did God really take human form?
Originally posted by queeq
That is fiction, admittedly so by Brown himself. Plus he got his facts quite wrong as well, most of his 'facts' were fiction. Who said the Bible was written as fiction?
Mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars generally hold that The Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a metaphorical character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which The Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.
Originally posted by queeq
Well, if these people really existed, why would you doubt the stories. Why if places and larger events took place, should you start picking and choosing what is true and what is not? And if you do, what standards are you gonna apply what line is true and what line is not?
By your reasoning, The Tudors is non-fiction, because the series features historical events, figures, and locations.
Originally posted by Robtard
I have a question, do you take everything in the Bible literally, or just the parts you happen to agree with/coincide with your agenda? If the latter, where do you draw the line and say "that's fiction; that's factual", when deciding between two or more unlikely scenarios?Was there really a great flood and we're all descendants of just one man and his family? Did Moses factually part the sea? Was there a gigantic sea monster (Leviathan) that God personally slew? Did God really take human form?
Well, I think the Bible contains history but it's told with a magnifying glass. And there is good reason why many scholars believe that the Bible is fictional. But I will not be getting into the whole complex chronological debate here. But that's what all this has to do with.
In any case, you have to look into these stories bit by bit. There's a lot you can't prove, but as I said before, if there is data that EVENTS took place, why would you doubt the rest of the story. No one can prove that waters were parted, or that lightning strick at particular times. In other words, you can't prove the miracles but you can investigate if the EVENTS took place.
Like a flood... there is plenty of evidence (not only from other sources, but geological and archaeological evidence s well) that major floods took place in Mesoptamia around 5000 BC or something like that. THere weren't global but major local floods. Now, here's the trick. The original Biblical text does not exclude a local flood, it could very wel have been that way. And since most of civilisation lived in Mesopotamia in those days (again: archaeological evidence) it prolly would have been a major catastrophy.
So if someone survived such a flood, it's not likely he told his story. That's about as far as proving or disproving goes. But the event of a flood is quite provable.
The same goes for Asiatic settlements in Egypt, conquest of Jericho and basically from king Rehaboam on we're on very solid ground of these characters being actual historical figures.
But to get all this into perspective I'd have to go into an chronological debate that spans over 2000 years and all Mediterranean civilisations in that period. There is a solid story there, IMHO.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By your reasoning, The Tudors is non-fiction, because the series features historical events, figures, and locations.
What's The Tudors? Never heard of it.
But don't play smart. If it's fiction, it's fiction. If they use factual evidence, they use it. If you can show stuff is wrong, it's wrong. If it's invented, it's invented. There's plenty of opportunity to check that.
In case of the Bible, give us a reason why it's fiction.
Originally posted by queeq
Well, I think the Bible contains history but it's told with a magnifying glass. And there is good reason why many scholars believe that the Bible is fictional. But I will not be getting into the whole complex chronological debate here. But that's what all this has to do with.In any case, you have to look into these stories bit by bit. There's a lot you can't prove, but as I said before, if there is data that EVENTS took place, why would you doubt the rest of the story. No one can prove that waters were parted, or that lightning strick at particular times. In other words, you can't prove the miracles but you can investigate if the EVENTS took place.
Like a flood... there is plenty of evidence (not only from other sources, but geological and archaeological evidence s well) that major floods took place in Mesoptamia around 5000 BC or something like that. THere weren't global but major local floods. Now, here's the trick. The original Biblical text does not exclude a local flood, it could very wel have been that way. And since most of civilisation lived in Mesopotamia in those days (again: archaeological evidence) it prolly would have been a major catastrophy.
So if someone survived such a flood, it's not likely he told his story. That's about as far as proving or disproving goes. But the event of a flood is quite provable.
The same goes for Asiatic settlements in Egypt, conquest of Jericho and basically from king Rehaboam on we're on very solid ground of these characters being actual historical figures.
But to get all this into perspective I'd have to go into an chronological debate that spans over 2000 years and all Mediterranean civilisations in that period. There is a solid story there, IMHO.
Pretty sure the Bible states that God flooded the Earth, as a means to kill everyone, with the exception of Noah, his family and the animals he took aboard the Arc.
To the point though, why not take this story literally, as it is written and not try to make it more possible by adding likely probabilities, eg it was only a local flood etc. While other stories like a virgin becoming pregnant and giving birth to a man-God, are taken literally without probable exceptions added?
Originally posted by queeq
What's The Tudors? Never heard of it.But don't play smart. If it's fiction, it's fiction. If they use factual evidence, they use it. If you can show stuff is wrong, it's wrong. If it's invented, it's invented. There's plenty of opportunity to check that.
In case of the Bible, give us a reason why it's fiction.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars generally hold that The Bible is an imaginative fiction, and all stories within it are of a metaphorical character. None of the early stories are held to have a solid historical basis, and only some of the later stories possess at most only a few tiny fragments of genuine historical memory—which by their definition are only those points which are supported by archaeological discoveries. In this view, all of the stories about the biblical patriarchs are fictional, and the patriarchs never existed. Further, mainstream archaeologists and biblical scholars hold that the twelve tribes of Israel never existed, King David and King Saul never existed, and that the united kingdom of Israel, which The Bible says that David and Solomon ruled, never existed.
Who are your mainstream archaeologists, AdamPoe? And what is their take on a possible faulty chronology on which the assesment of these people never existing all hinges on?
There is at leats one piece of hard evidence that suggest David di exist by the way:the famous Tel Dan Stele. It's from a later date than the supposed king David but it does mention the HOUSE OF DAVID. That at least hint at a possible existence.