Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, using the NT as a historical document to support other observations. It's called using resources to show that jaundiced presentations are not reliable.
The ancient writings in the Bible are as "historical" as any other writings of the same era. The artificial dismissal of them because of their selection and use in religion is bogus.
The ancient writings in the Bible are as "historical" as any other writings of the same era. The artificial dismissal of them because of their selection and use in religion is bogus.
And 8f we can dismiss the stories of Zeus then we can those of Jesus. Historians can trace the origins of s9me of the stories in the Bible which would make the gods in those stories as a true and the God of the Bible.
I would be more concerned with the acceptance of the Bible as accurate and true based on it being used in a religion to be more problematic than the use of non religious books from that time period. At least those we make the efort to verifly before accepting, at least the bestimate we can.
Is the Bible even part of the history of Christian anti semetism?.
Don’t conflate mythology and history, badlander. While historical accounts may include elements of legend, they are still accounts of events within the general time of the historian and should be analyzed as accounts of events that may have been “embroidered “ but which are at least based on actual events.
The ancient writings in the Bible are as "historical" as any other writings of the same era. The artificial dismissal of them because of their selection and use in religion is bogus.
There is no artificial dismissal, they are dismissed as historical because many of the books are often invented stories, and not recording history. So in that instance they are not historical as a history or biography would be.
They are historical where they tell us what the authors believed or what they wanted others to believe.
For you to pretend we are not making this argument is amusing.
There is no artificial dismissal, they are dismissed as historical because many of the books are often invented stories, and not recording history. So in that instance they are not historical as a history or biography would be.
They are historical where they tell us what the authors believed or what they wanted others to believe.
For you to pretend we are not making this argument is amusing.
Don’t conflate mythology and history, badlander. While historical accounts may include elements of legend, they are still accounts of events within the general time of the historian and should be analyzed as accounts of events that may have been “embroidered “ but which are at least based on actual events.
So are the Norse Sagas history or Myths? Is the Bible history or myths? MysticPhD thinks the Bible should be treated as a historical document and only isn't because of its connection to religion. I cannot see how a book with a creation story or one of a global flood can be anything but myths same as other books with creation myths and flood stories.
Are you stating that the Bible should be treated as a historical document? What is the general time line of the flood, of the building of the tower of Babel or of being kicked out of the garden of Eden? But you are correct, the Icelandic Sagas all are from a 225 or so year time period so are more historical than the OT.
Is the Book of Mormon myth or historical? Is Beowolf? Or the Celtics myths? The origin stories of the Blackfoot/Blackfoot compared to the one in the Bible? Are Ulysses, Homer or the Iliad histories or myths?
A big difference is that some take everything in their religious book as factual and base rules and laws upon whatever is in those books. We do not do this with other books of myths and histories. Jews and pagans were killed (murdered) only because they did not accept the words of the New Testament. Despite that, we do have more evidence that a raven will fill up a pitcher with stones to get to the water than anyone can rise from the dead.
And that I am going to be tortured forever in a fiery Hell for n9t accepting Jesus Christ as my personal saviour is based on which historical event?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
