fett on 29/1/2004 at 17:56
I agree totally - the only thing that bothers me is that of the 5,000, there are at least 20-30 that I've been able to personally verify - this is what I do for a living. They are independently verifiable. They meet the same standard of qualification used for other ancient documents, yet for the Bible somehow that's simply not good enough?? I'm more than ready to throw out the bullshit references, but why isn't the Bible accorded the same credit as other documents of similiar age? Why aren't the verifiable references taken seriously? In my experience the opponents of the book are being more fanatical than it's followers at times.
I'm not argueing this as some religious nut trying to convert people - I'm trying to point out that the playing field needs to be level and it simply isn't for some reason when it comes to the Bible. What gives? It bothers me, and it sets a precedent that is unhealthy when it comes to understanding ancient cultures and history. If we toss out anything with a supposed 'spiritual message' we've cut off our nose to spite our face. Yet, the 'scholars' have no problem sifting through the myths of non-Judeo Christian writings and separating fact from fiction. With the Bible, the general response is to throw out the baby with the bathwater (enough euphemisms already...). Are they threatened by it's message somehow? Is it just a backlash against fundamentalism? Why do people react so emotionally to this particular book?
buglunch on 29/1/2004 at 17:59
Jesus' proper name was Yeshua=Joshua. Who is this "Joseph the Semite" supposed to refer to? There would have been thousands of them. Do you mean the "Coat-of-Many-Colours" dude? He probably existed in some form or as a composite but that doesn't validate any of the goofy stuff in the Old Testament; if God wrote or dictated the OT why did he tell us that women were inferior and were unclean when menstruating and that slavery was okay as long as non-Jews were the slaves?? Men wrote the Bible through distilling centuries of lore and adding controlling laws to keep people in line. Lots of wisdom + plenty of loopy stuff that should be discarded, not a word-for-word literal guide for every bloody situation known to modern man.
the_grip on 29/1/2004 at 17:59
Quote:
It's just literary dick-waving.
i'm just being brief... obviously, a discussion of one of these sources could fill an entire book, not to mention a thread.
Out of the many external Biblical sources that validate the Bible's authenticity, i'm sure some of them are more loosely connected than others. However, many of them are independently verifiable, etc.
For example, take the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls were found this century, and they have provided a wealth of information to support the authenticity of the Bible you see on the shelf at a bookstore. There are literally hundreds of groups in late BC/early AD that preserved (both Jewish and Christian) the Biblical texts as we have them today, most of which had no connections to one another at all.
What authenticate means is many things... two of the broader meanings:
A. Ancient texts correspond to what we consider as the Bible today
B. Archelogical discoveries (both physical and literal) validate historical events that are recorded in the Bible
i'm referring to A. i mentioned the Republic because there are not a whole lot of literary sources that corraborate to the original text. However, the Bible has a wealth of sources that show that the text churches typically use today are either the same words or the same meaning as ~2000 years ago. On point B, there is a wealth of external evidence as well.
i don't consider that a useless parallel... the point was about scholars dismissing the Bible by saying, "Posh, it has been changed over time so it is totally invalidated."
Quote:
Whether I dismiss the text or not is dependent on what it is I'm trying to use it for.
You can personally do this, but to study something as a historical work you need to have objective independant evidence to validate it, which is what i was driving at.
Agent Monkeysee on 29/1/2004 at 18:00
Quote:
Originally posted by fett They meet the same standard of qualification used for other ancient documents, yet for the Bible somehow
that's simply not good enough??<I>In what sense?</I> How is it being dismissed in academia?
Here's another question. If there's so many independent sources is it possible that using the Bible as an historical source would simply be redundant?
Quote:
Originally posted by the_grip i don't consider that a useless parallel... the point was about scholars dismissing the Bible by saying, "Posh, it has been changed over time so it is totally invalidated."
This just sounds like outright stupidity on the part of scholars which makes me doubt how real this phenomenon is. Surely if you're interested in using the Bible as a primary source you would be consulting the ORIGINAL TEXT and not some translation of it. The NT's written in Greek, it's not like it needs some crazy-ass translation from heiroglyphics or something.
fett on 29/1/2004 at 18:15
bug - Jospeh the Semite as in Joseph who supposedly served in the Egyptian government in the pre-Exodus period. There wouldn't have been 'thousands of them' - the area and context of the find implies heavily that there was a young man of Semitic origin serving in a high position w/in the Egyptian government at one time. If you take the Biblical account, Joseph saved the entire empire from a famine. There's no evidence of that historically, but his name would have been remembered to Egyptian history.
AM - It's being dismissed in that no matter how many archaeological finds correspond to Biblical historical details, no matter how many times it's characters appear in other literature, and no matter how many external proofs continue to present itself, by and large, the Bible is considered a work of fiction by most historians. It has proven itself to be accurate over and over again, but it is still dismissed as a hodge-podge of legend and myth by the majority of acadamia. I can only speak from my experience with such people, but it seems that the spiritual message of the book inexplicably renders even the most intelligent minds hostile toward any other value it may have.
As far as it being redundant, how about we look at it's track record and start using it to get a clearer picture of ancient middle-eastern culture for our textbooks and history books, instead of persisting in a 'guilty until proven innocent' stance? Other books that meet the same critieria are afforded a certain amount of credibility sight unseen, but the Bible is always held in suspicion until every little detail can be proven from external sources. This is a useful, and common practice up to a point, but the Bible is held in closer scrutiny than other books of it's caliber. It's treated this way in every field it speaks to: science, anthropology, botany, geology, etc. (again, only speaking from expierence). I fully understand that trepidation when it comes to matters spiritual and theolgical, but archaelogically, lingiustically, and historically speaking, it has a great track record, and should be afforded the respect it has earned in that regard.
Muzman on 29/1/2004 at 18:16
As for "why does the poor, put upon bible have to prove itself so?"
response one, in light of our history being what it is: Dudes, seriously.
And two; there's that old saying about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.
the_grip on 29/1/2004 at 18:24
Quote:
there's that old saying about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.
Certainly... i think Fett is saying as such - to accept the Bible as a valid text does not mean you have to submit to its spirituality, rather, he's saying that the scholastic world is missing a huge heap of historical accounts that are right at their fingertips. When i was in school, one of my majors was history (in particular, ancient near east history). i can't tell you how many teachers i had that threw the Bible out the window.
IMHO, the problem lies in the fact that people who discredit the Bible's authenticity are actually refusing to submit to its spiritual message. It's quite an interesting phenomenon to me, but not surprising.
Quote:
This just sounds like outright stupidity on the part of scholars
i quite agree... i don't understand it, but it is there. Go to your local university, talk to the history professors. You would probably get the answer, "Well, it does have some validity to it", but in the same breath they will dismiss it (maybe not explicitly, but listen to their demeanor).
fett on 29/1/2004 at 18:25
Muz - totally -given our history, it should be held in closer scrutiny to prevent people from doing crazy 'god told me to' stuff based on it's teachings.
But in terms of 'extraordinary claims' - I'm not touching those. I'm talking about something as simple as the location for ancient Jericho, the Judean procurater named Pilate, the shipwreck of Saul of Tarsus. These aren't
spiritual issus, yet the 'scholars' and acadamia in general regarded all three as legends until evidence was found proving that these people existed and these events took place. They were not 'extraordinary' claims, and neither are the majority of the historic events the Bible records or mentions, yet they are held with the same suspicion as the miracles, creation story, and angels. There needs to be the same distinction as is drawn with other ancient literature.
Quote:
Go to your local university, talk to the history professors. You would probably get the answer, "Well, it does have some validity to it", but in the same breath they will dismiss it (maybe not explicitly, but listen to their demeanor).
This is
exactly what I'm talking about. I'm sick of being treated like a Mormon at the doorstep just because I readily accept that fact that there was actually an ancient city called Sodom, or because I actually believe Israel had a succession of pagan kings, or because I dare to think that there might have actually been a Nazarite stonemason who was executed on charges of treason by the Roman government and some people thought he was a Messiah.
I'm not trying to get anyone to join a church!. I'm just trying to take into account a verfiable record of history that is continually ignored, yet continually proven to be reliable
historically. It baffles me that otherwise intelligent people can't separate the two issues.
Rug Burn Junky on 29/1/2004 at 18:29
When one starts talking about the entire world being underwater, talking snakes, virgins having kids, people walking on water, replicating fish like you're on freaking Star Trek, communicating with bushes and entire seas splitting in half just so a few people wouldn't have to swim, then yes, the credibility of the work as a whole MUST be questioned and it should be treated as legend, until one can independently verify each and every claim made.
fett on 29/1/2004 at 18:37
Quote:
the credibility of the work as a whole MUST be questioned and it should be treated as legend, until one can independently verify each and every claim made.
Absolutely.
However, it SHOULD NOT be held in derision and ridicule beyond the bounds of other such books that claim equally weird stuff and yet maintain a suspended respect by acadamia.
In the end, the scoffers look like idiots when digs start producing these sites and names. It's unprofessional and childish at best, and it betrays a certain fear of the spiritual message of the book. IMO if you're going to be an atheist, then you should be a damned good one and not resort to ridicule to elevate your position. It's an equally ugly tactic on the part of 'creationists' and Christians who are just as biased on the other end of the spectrum.
