Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Where does the Bible say it's an historical record?

The Bible starts out, "In the beginning, God created ..."

Sorry, zeek, but for you to ask such an absurd question causes me to question not just your faith, but your intelligence.

Hey zeek, just what do you really believe? Anything at all? Do you even question that the Gospels are historical records?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible starts out, "In the beginning, God created ..."

Sorry, zeek, but for you to ask such an absurd question causes me to question not just your faith, but your intelligence.

Hey zeek, just what do you really believe? Anything at all? Do you even question that the Gospels are historical records?

How do you get that the Bible is an historical record from the words "In the beginning God created"? I think the gospels have a historical basis which is mixed with myth and legend.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

How do you get that the Bible is an historical record from the words "In the beginning God created"? I think the gospels have a historical basis which is mixed with myth and legend.

The Bible is an historical record of events starting with "God created."

To claim that the Gospels or Genesis is "mixed with myth and legend" indicates that it is not the word of God to you and can be anything you want it to be.

That explains many of your posts -- actually a mixture of myths and legends -- cunningly devised fables dreamed up by zeek and his preferred list of "scientists."

Herein is the difference between us -- you think the Bible is mixed with myth and legend, while I think your posts and everything else written is mixed with myth and legend.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible is an historical record of events starting with "God created."

To claim that the Gospels or Genesis is "mixed with myth and legend" indicates that it is not the word of God to you and can be anything you want it to be.

That explains many of your posts -- actually a mixture of myths and legends -- cunningly devised fables dreamed up by zeek and his preferred list of "scientists."

Herein is the difference between us -- you think the Bible is mixed with myth and legend, while I think your posts and everything else written is mixed with myth and legend.

The Bible never explicitly states that it is an historical record. That it is is a matter of Christian tradition.

[awareness]

May I put in my 2 cents worth of myth and legend?

Originally Posted by Ohio

The Bible is an historical record of events starting with "God created."

That's the history of the universe, not the Bible.

Originally Posted by Ohio

To claim that the Gospels or Genesis is "mixed with myth and legend" indicates that it is not the word of God to you

That brings back zeek's original question : "Where in the Bible does it say it's a historical record?" If the word of God doesn't say it means that it's not historical. So to say it's a historical record is extra-Biblical tradition.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

The Bible never explicitly states that it is an historical record. That it is is a matter of Christian tradition.

Originally Posted by awareness

If the word of God doesn't say it means that it's not historical. So to say it's a historical record is extra-Biblical tradition.

That's *conveniently* an absurd standard to place on the Bible.

Genesis 2.4, for example, says, "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created."

Obviously an "historical" record, but you guys apparently read about this so-called "disclaimer" by some university moron ... err scholar like Ehrman ... and believed this nonsense.

Luke himself precedes two books with statements like, "draw up a narrative concerning these matters," but it's not "history" because he didn't use the right words. Seriously?

So when the Bible repeatedly instructs us that "these things were recorded," it is not actually an "historical record" because it did not use the words "historical record."

Are you guys really doubling down on dumb? You guys are better than this! Have you actually gone off the deep end with this PC talk? The LC was also this way -- i.e. you can't be a "real" church unless you call yourself "THE church IN anytown."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's *conveniently* an absurd standard to place on the Bible.

Is it the word of God or not? The word of God does not say the Bible is history. Sorry. Don't blame me. Blame the Bible for not saying it.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Genesis 2.4, for example, says, "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created."

Again, not speaking of the Bible. Look up the Hebrew word for heaven in that verse and you'll find it's speaking of the sky and celestial space, up there.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously an "historical" record, but you guys apparently read about this so-called "disclaimer" by some university moron ... err scholar like Ehrman ... and believed this nonsense.

Not true at all.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Luke himself precedes two books with statements like, "draw up a narrative concerning these matters," but it's not "history" because he didn't use the right words. Seriously?

Where's the history of Jerusalem and the temple getting sacked by the Romans? Why not that history? Not much of a history book without that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Is it the word of God or not? The word of God does not say the Bible is history. Sorry. Don't blame me. Blame the Bible for not saying it.

So the Chronicles of Israel's history and the book of Kings are not History books? The account in Genesis about the patriarchs that is not biographical? Judges doesn't tell us the history of the judges? Joshua doesn't tell us the history of Joshua? Esther, Nehemiah, Ezra, etc. These kinds of pronouncements from you always make me think and ask, why am I listening to this fool?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's *conveniently* an absurd standard to place on the Bible.

Genesis 2.4, for example, says, "These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created."

Obviously an "historical" record, but you guys apparently read about this so-called "disclaimer" by some university moron ... err scholar like Ehrman ... and believed this nonsense.

Luke himself precedes two books with statements like, "draw up a narrative concerning these matters," but it's not "history" because he didn't use the right words. Seriously?

So when the Bible repeatedly instructs us that "these things were recorded," it is not actually an "historical record" because it did not use the words "historical record."

Are you guys really doubling down on dumb? You guys are better than this! Have you actually gone off the deep end with this PC talk? The LC was also this way -- i.e. you can't be a "real" church unless you call yourself "THE church IN anytown."

The creation accounts in Genesis are without a doubt ancient Israel's stories of the world's beginnings. Are they scientifically accurate accounts of the origin of the cosmos, the earth or natural history? The overwhelming evidence of modern science says no. And the efforts of the young earth creationists and the gap theorists like Pember to reconcile Genesis with the body of scientific evidence are total failures. I don't see how you as an intelligent person cannot recognize this on some level.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

The creation accounts in Genesis are without a doubt ancient Israel's stories of the world's beginnings. Are they scientifically accurate accounts of the origin of the cosmos, the earth or natural history? The overwhelming evidence of modern science says no. And the efforts of the young earth creationists and the gap theorists like Pember to reconcile Genesis with the body of scientific evidence are total failures. I don't see how you as an intelligent person cannot recognize this on some level.

I agree that the interpretations that I have read concerning creationists and others are a total failure. They are really wrong.

But the error I feel is in the interpretation of the Bible. Not the Bible.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

That brings back zeek's original question : "Where in the Bible does it say it's a historical record?" If the word of God doesn't say it means that it's not historical. So to say it's a historical record is extra-Biblical tradition.

Anything that records the past is a historical record. In other words, the Bible has memory. The bible was not a historical record for those who recorded events at the time they happened. But for us today it records the past and is a historical record.

Take a shopping list for example. Today's shopping list is not a historical record. But put that list in a safe place for 10 years, then it becomes a historical record of what you bought 10 years ago. The list can also be used to infer what you ate at the time, it is likely that you made recipes with the list of ingredients.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Anything that records the past is a historical record.

But was it actual history?

Originally Posted by ZNP

In other words, the Bible has memory. The bible was not a historical record for those who recorded events at the time they happened.

Genesis was written and edited over a span of hundreds of years, beginning circa 1000BCE. None of the authors or editors were there for the creation, obviously. They were not recording events as they happened. The same could be said of Noah. None of the scribes were there. The stories come down from the oral tradition. And we all know what happens to oral traditions by playing the Telephone Game. The oral tradition was picked up and polished and improved upon over generations.

So to say, "The bible was not a historical record for those who recorded events at the time they happened," is to be mistakenly looking at it like there were reporters on hand, recording it as it happened. And that's not rational, nor realistic.

And what about any historical record of the great thinkers, like Socrates and Plato, et al? Oh darn. It keeps skipping my mind. The Bible is Jewish history, mixed with legend.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

But was it actual history?


Genesis was written and edited over a span of hundreds of years, beginning circa 1000BCE. None of the authors or editors were there for the creation, obviously. They were not recording events as they happened. The same could be said of Noah. None of the scribes were there. The stories come down from the oral tradition. And we all know what happens to oral traditions by playing the Telephone Game. The oral tradition was picked up and polished and improved upon over generations.

So to say, "The bible was not a historical record for those who recorded events at the time they happened," is to be mistakenly looking at it like there were reporters on hand, recording it as it happened. And that's not rational, nor realistic.

And what about any historical record of the great thinkers, like Socrates and Plato, et al? Oh darn. It keeps skipping my mind. The Bible is Jewish history, mixed with legend.

If you are right does it change anything?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

But was it actual history?


Genesis was written and edited over a span of hundreds of years, beginning circa 1000BCE. None of the authors or editors were there for the creation, obviously. They were not recording events as they happened. The same could be said of Noah. None of the scribes were there. The stories come down from the oral tradition. And we all know what happens to oral traditions by playing the Telephone Game. The oral tradition was picked up and polished and improved upon over generations.

So to say, "The bible was not a historical record for those who recorded events at the time they happened," is to be mistakenly looking at it like there were reporters on hand, recording it as it happened. And that's not rational, nor realistic.

And what about any historical record of the great thinkers, like Socrates and Plato, et al? Oh darn. It keeps skipping my mind. The Bible is Jewish history, mixed with legend.

Can you give me the post # from which you allegedly quoted "the Bible has memory" quote from me? I do not recognize this.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

That brings back zeek's original question : "Where in the Bible does it say it's a historical record?" If the word of God doesn't say it means that it's not historical. So to say it's a historical record is extra-Biblical tradition.

Some of the names of the Bible historians are referenced here:

2Samuel 8:16
2Samuel 20:24
1Kings 4:3
2Kings 18:37
1chron 18:15
2Chron 34:8
Isaiah 8:2
Isaiah 36:3
Isaiah 36:22


References to other historical records are here:

1Chron 4:22
Ezra 4:15
Ezra 6:2
Esther 6:1

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Some of the names of the Bible historians are referenced here:

2Samuel 8:16
2Samuel 20:24
1Kings 4:3
2Kings 18:37
1chron 18:15
2Chron 34:8
Isaiah 8:2
Isaiah 36:3
Isaiah 36:22


References to other historical records are here:

1Chron 4:22
Ezra 4:15
Ezra 6:2
Esther 6:1

Like I said, Jewish history, written by Jews, who claim to be God's chosen race.