[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Feel free to cite one of the historic events in the Bible that was "made up".

Nice one Bart - by definition, a historical even is not made up, so you've put me in a bit of a conundrum. But say, parting of the Red Sea - accurate as described? ie a full parting of the sea that then crashes back to drown the Egyptians. Or possibly a story about how Moses found a way thru the shallow parts that the Egyptian couldn't. But then I'm not aware of any historical evidence for Moses in the first place.

How about this: In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the census with the birth of Jesus, which the Gospel of Matthew places about a decade earlier (c. 4 BCE), during the rule of Herod the Great. Bible scholars have traditionally sought to reconcile these accounts; while most current scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke. So is the bible historically accurate here?

[BartSimpson]

Lemmy Lemmy:

To non-believers, belief in ANYTHING in the bible is JUST as ridiculous and fallacious as belief in a "6,000 year-old Earth".

Here is an avowedly secular site that has some fair perspective on the Bible as history; http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Dayseed
Which IS a cop-out. It's along the same lines as Creationists simply saying" Well God can do anything." It's science's response to NOT being able to replicate it in a lab, and it's not going to satisfy the truly curious.
As for naming it the Citrate strain to show it's markedly different means nothing if it's still E.Coli. Isn't that what we do with breeds of animals? We call a Doberman a Doberman because it's markedly different from the other breeds, even though it's still a dog.

Having said that however, I'd be quite interested in any future findings from Lenski's experiments. Personally, I think it would be pretty cool if the E.Coli DID go bicellular. Like I said, I'm not close minded, and I don't get all uppity and take it personally just because someone doesn't believe what I do in this matter.
If you wanna know how I look at the evidence/proof/theories or whatever you wanna call it for evolution, I think of them like this.
If Evolution and Creationism were fighting in civil court, I believe the "evidence" on the side of evolution would sway the court to find in its favour.
However, if it was in a criminal court, neither side really has anything to be able to state its case unequivocally.
The funny part is, when some people stupidly demand proof of God, they want criminal court type evidence, but are QUITE happy to use civil court type evidence to state their case for evolution.
Now, while Lenski's experiments are still civil court evidence, I will say it's the best I've seen so far that might have any chance of graduating to hard proof.
Of course, there's no reason to not believe that evolution was a machination of God to develop the myriad of life He seeded on Earth unless one is a hard core fundie or hard core evolutionist.
I said in a previous thread similar to this topic, "How do we know that all these things we're learning from science, aren't giving us glimpses into how God did things?"

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Lemmy Lemmy:

To non-believers, belief in ANYTHING in the bible is JUST as ridiculous and fallacious as belief in a "6,000 year-old Earth".

Here is an avowedly secular site that has some fair perspective on the Bible as history; http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

Just read the story of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt - sounds the Exodus has a lot of made up elements, spun to be favorable to the Hyksos (Israelites). So Exodus is not a historical document, in the sense that it is an accurate depiction of what happened. It is based on some real events. I bet most of the bible is like that.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Feel free to cite one of the historic events in the Bible that was "made up".

Nice one Bart - by definition, a historical even is not made up, so you've put me in a bit of a conundrum. But say, parting of the Red Sea - accurate as described? ie a full parting of the sea that then crashes back to drown the Egyptians. Or possibly a story about how Moses found a way thru the shallow parts that the Egyptian couldn't. But then I'm not aware of any historical evidence for Moses in the first place.

How about this: In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the census with the birth of Jesus, which the Gospel of Matthew places about a decade earlier (c. 4 BCE), during the rule of Herod the Great. Bible scholars have traditionally sought to reconcile these accounts; while most current scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke. So is the bible historically accurate here?

Historically inaccurate and "made up" are two different things.

There's a lot of dispute about Moses and the Exodus as the events are related in the Bible, no doubt. But some accounts in the Book of Exodus have been proven out. For instance, prior to 1906 the Hittite tribe/nation that is mentioned in Exodus was thought by secular scholars to be made up. But in 1906 the Hittite capital was unearthed and today the existence of the Hittites is undisputed.
The 1988 unearthing of the Egyptina el Amarna letters gives a non-Hebrew verification of the invasion of the Hebrews into modern-day Israel.
King Sargon of Assyria was once thought to be a fable, but when the University of Chicago excavated his palace in the 1950's that opinion changed.
The city of Tyre - mentioned in prophecy - was also thought to be a story - but, again, it's been found to exist and it's been excavated from the Mediterranean. I'll grant that the prohecy about it's destruction may well have been written after the earhtqwuake that likely destroyed it.

I can go on, but my point here is that there are historic elements in the Bible. Elements that have been proven by secular sources.

As to historical accuracy as a concept, here we are less than 100 years after the major World Wars and people dispute accounts of those wars. And many of those accounts have been revised. But if a book about WW2 is riddled with errors we don't run out and say that this is proof that WW@ never happened. But it seems that's the logic being used here by some people.

"If it was mentioned in the Bible it isn'true."

Well, that's just bigoted, narrow minded, and deliberately ignorant.

[poquas]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

poquas poquas:

That’s exactly the reaction I’d expect from a fundamentalist who is feeling threatened.

You know the expression, consider it said.

poquas poquas:

The bible is a piece of fiction.

*All* of it?

ALL of it!

Provide any third party independently verifiable component of the bible that completely disregards faith as a component. That does not mean references to places or people of the time as this is a common plot device even now to incorporate places or people to attempt to lend credence to a piece of fiction. Prove to the non-believers that Christ, any of the apostles, Abraham, or Noah actually existed.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Lemmy Lemmy:

To non-believers, belief in ANYTHING in the bible is JUST as ridiculous and fallacious as belief in a "6,000 year-old Earth".

Hmmm, wow I went to various churches through my years, Anglican, Presbyterian, United, Baptist, Mennonite Brethren and I was NEVER taught that bit of nonsense..EVER.

[BartSimpson]

poquas poquas:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

poquas poquas:

That’s exactly the reaction I’d expect from a fundamentalist who is feeling threatened.

You know the expression, consider it said.

poquas poquas:

The bible is a piece of fiction.

*All* of it?

ALL of it!

Provide any third party independently verifiable component of the bible that completely disregards faith as a component. That does not mean references to places or people of the time as this is a common plot device even now to incorporate places or people to attempt to lend credence to a piece of fiction. Prove to the non-believers that Christ, any of the apostles, Abraham, or Noah actually existed.

You're a little confused, aren't you?

You say the Bible is wholly fictitious and then you qualify and back peddle your statement.

Is it or is it not wholly fictitious as you have stated?

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Historically inaccurate and "made up" are two different things.


I can go on, but my point here is that there are historic elements in the Bible. Elements that have been proven by secular sources.

As to historical accuracy as a concept, here we are less than 100 years after the major World Wars and people dispute accounts of those wars. And many of those accounts have been revised. But if a book about WW2 is riddled with errors we don't run out and say that this is proof that WW@ never happened. But it seems that's the logic being used here by some people.

"If it was mentioned in the Bible it isn'true."

Well, that's just bigoted, narrow minded, and deliberately ignorant.

To acknowledge something is historically inaccurate but call it a historical document would mean that everything ever written is a historical document.

No sane person would argue that there are no historically accurate elements in the bible. It doesn't make the bible a historic text as I would understand the term.

I wonder who would say "If it was mentioned in the Bible it isn't true."? I think maybe you're twisting somebody's words who said "Just because it's mentioned in the bible doesn't make it true."

[andyt]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Of course, there's no reason to not believe that evolution was a machination of God to develop the myriad of life He seeded on Earth unless one is a hard core fundie or hard core evolutionist.
I said in a previous thread similar to this topic, "How do we know that all these things we're learning from science, aren't giving us glimpses into how God did things?"

Yep, that first point seems to be the official Catholic doctrine these days. Can't argue with it, because it's impossible to prove or disprove. At least with current knowledge. But if all God did was seed life, then evolution is real, since everything we see sprang from that original seed. So totally different species do arise by evolution. We did have ape ancestors - the horror.

[poquas]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You're a little confused, aren't you?

You say the Bible is wholly fictitious and then you qualify and back peddle your statement.

Is it or is it not wholly fictitious as you have stated?

Are you really going to bail again? You say historical, I say fiction. Now prove me wrong.

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

No sane person would argue that there are no historically accurate elements in the bible. It doesn't make the bible a historic text as I would understand the term.

I wonder who would say "If it was mentioned in the Bible it isn't true."? I think maybe you're twisting somebody's words who said "Just because it's mentioned in the bible doesn't make it true."

Have you been reading poquas' comments?

[BartSimpson]

Dayseed Dayseed:

I suspect that what Bart is getting at when he refers to it as a "historical record" is that it functions more like a historical "register". That is, true things have been roped into it.

Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code contains references to Paris and the Louvre among other landmarks. 6,000 years from now, the whole Priory of Scion thing being fictional shouldn't distract from Paris and the Louvre being real places in the early 21st Century. Speaking on his behalf, I think he's getting that if you were to doubt Paris and the Louvre simply because they appeared in the Da Vinci Code, a work of fiction, you'd be penalizing yourself.

Quoted for truth. +1

[andyt]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

No sane person would argue that there are no historically accurate elements in the bible. It doesn't make the bible a historic text as I would understand the term.

I wonder who would say "If it was mentioned in the Bible it isn't true."? I think maybe you're twisting somebody's words who said "Just because it's mentioned in the bible doesn't make it true."

$1:

Provide any third party independently verifiable component of the bible that completely disregards faith as a component. That does not mean references to places or people of the time as this is a common plot device even now to incorporate places or people to attempt to lend credence to a piece of fiction. Prove to the non-believers that Christ, any of the apostles, Abraham, or Noah actually existed.

See what he's getting at? You two are arguing past each other.

[poquas]

andyt andyt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

andyt andyt:

No sane person would argue that there are no historically accurate elements in the bible. It doesn't make the bible a historic text as I would understand the term.

I wonder who would say "If it was mentioned in the Bible it isn't true."? I think maybe you're twisting somebody's words who said "Just because it's mentioned in the bible doesn't make it true."

$1:

Provide any third party independently verifiable component of the bible that completely disregards faith as a component. That does not mean references to places or people of the time as this is a common plot device even now to incorporate places or people to attempt to lend credence to a piece of fiction. Prove to the non-believers that Christ, any of the apostles, Abraham, or Noah actually existed.

See what he's getting at? You two are arguing past each other.

That’s not the issue.

Bart claims the bible is an historical document. I’ve said (repeatedly) nonsense. Now it’s coming down to a mention of a real place or a mention of Caesar makes it historical?

We’re back to Captain Marvel and the Da Vinci Code as a defence and nothing more than a way to weasel out of the discussion.