Bible dateing methods

[artybloke]

I find it ironical that you should be challenging people to define myth when you had so much trouble yourself.

What about her definition do you not understand? Seems perfectly comprehensible to me.

 

[gluadys]

I find it ironical that you should be challenging people to define myth when you had so much trouble yourself.

I didn't challenge. I asked. Words have different meanings to different people. You can end up going around in circles if you don't establish at the outset what a person means when using a word with multiple meanings.

I think I have been clear about what I mean by myth. I do not mean something untrue.

 

[mixin machine]

What's wrong with that? I enjoy telling tall tales too. I'm a poet.

When recording history there is no room for story telling!!!
Why fabricate the geneolgies?
Why add embelishment to an already truely amazing story?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

When recording history there is no room for story telling!!!
Why fabricate the geneolgies?
Why add embelishment to an already truely amazing story?

only to a modern western mind. this conception of history is a cultural issue. history as we conceive of it now is only a few hundred years old.

...

 

[mixin machine]

I do not agree that myth means the end of truth. That is only one definition of myth. Other definitions of myth are consistent with myth being true.

So your saying that the flood myth is true.
Or the flood account is true.

 

[mixin machine]

Quote:

Originally Posted by: mixin machine

When recording history there is no room for story telling!!!
Why fabricate the geneolgies?
Why add embelishment to an already truely amazing story?

only to a modern western mind. this conception of history is a cultural issue. history as we conceive of it now is only a few hundred years old.

...

So do you believe the geneolgies are are lie?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Quote:

Originally Posted by: mixin machine

When recording history there is no room for story telling!!!
Why fabricate the geneolgies?
Why add embelishment to an already truely amazing story?




So do you believe the genealogies are are lie?

why use such loaded words as a lie?
lies are meant to deceive, to be deliberately misleading.

the genealogies have a purpose, that purpose is not the same as we have when we trace a family tree. we are striving for maximum accuracy.
the genealogies in both the NT and OT have at least several important reasons for their existence.

the OT relies on the genealogies to prove authority, both kingly and priestly.
from at least 1890 and Wm Green it has been obvious that the genealogies are manipulated to prove a point. Why the special significance of 7 in Gen 5 or of 14 in Matt 1? because the numbers prove something to the original readers.

the purposes of the genealogies are not modern nor are they western notions of a newspaperman's account of history-who what where why how. to understand them we need to understand how they were used in that context, not ours. it does the Scriptures a disservice to force them into our boxes, rather than to use good hermeneutical principles to interpret them.

are they a lie if they are not exact and accurate like i would build a modern family tree? of course not. the significance of the ages and numbers in Genesis genealogies are probably lost to us. for numbers had near magical meaning to the Hebrews that we simply have de-sacralized and lost completely. numbers are just abstractions to us, not to them. are there millions of years hidden in the genealogies of Genesis? probably not. that is why i date Adam to less than 10k, roughly the beginning of recorded history on Mespotamia. i believe that does justice to Genesis.

...

 

[gluadys]

So your saying that the flood myth is true.
Or the flood account is true.

I mean that it is true as story and true in its teaching, but it is not a historical fact.

 

[Floodnut]

why use such loaded words as a lie?
lies are meant to deceive, to be deliberately misleading.

the genealogies have a purpose, that purpose is not the same as we have when we trace a family tree. we are striving for maximum accuracy.
the genealogies in both the NT and OT have at least several important reasons for their existence.

the OT relies on the genealogies to prove authority, both kingly and priestly.
from at least 1890 and Wm Green it has been obvious that the genealogies are manipulated to prove a point. Why the special significance of 7 in Gen 5 or of 14 in Matt 1? because the numbers prove something to the original readers.

the purposes of the genealogies are not modern nor are they western notions of a newspaperman's account of history-who what where why how. to understand them we need to understand how they were used in that context, not ours. it does the Scriptures a disservice to force them into our boxes, rather than to use good hermeneutical principles to interpret them.

are they a lie if they are not exact and accurate like i would build a modern family tree? of course not. the significance of the ages and numbers in Genesis genealogies are probably lost to us. for numbers had near magical meaning to the Hebrews that we simply have de-sacralized and lost completely. numbers are just abstractions to us, not to them. are there millions of years hidden in the genealogies of Genesis? probably not. that is why i date Adam to less than 10k, roughly the beginning of recorded history on Mespotamia. i believe that does justice to Genesis.

...

So the ancients did not use genealogies to count the passage of time? Yet YEC opponents, and Global Flood opponents are sure that Chinese empires, and Egyptian Dynasties can be calculated to discount the biblical chronology. The pagan chronologies are to be taken seriously, but the biblical ones are not? hmmmmm. I see. Thanks.

 

[Floodnut]

I mean that it is true as story and true in its teaching, but it is not a historical fact.

At what point does the Bible begin to present historical fact? The sons of Adam mentioned by Name in Hebrews and by Jesus are not literal? How about Noah, mentioned by Jesus and Peter? Was Joseph literal? Was Israel in Egypt? Was there an Israel? Did Abraham Lincoln exist? Julius Caesar? Richard Nixon?

Where does it start and stop?

 

[gluadys]

At what point does the Bible begin to present historical fact? The sons of Adam mentioned by Name in Hebrews and by Jesus are not literal? How about Noah, mentioned by Jesus and Peter? Was Joseph literal? Was Israel in Egypt? Was there an Israel? Did Abraham Lincoln exist? Julius Caesar? Richard Nixon?

Where does it start and stop?

Different styles overlap a lot in the bible. It would be difficult to name anything in the bible as history in our sense of the term, because most biblical history has other elements mingled in.

Nevertheless, some parts are far more historical than others. Archeologists have unearthed indisputable evidence, for example, that King Hezekiah was historical. Some events and many places have been confirmed.

This is the strongest level of confidence.

Between this and a person like Noah who features only in a myth or Job who appears in what could well be a fictional story, we have many gradations. We cannot confirm with certainty, for example, that Abraham existed, but much about the stories featuring Abraham are typical of the times in which he lived. Archeologists have found, for example, references to laws and customs such as a barren wife giving her handmaid to her husband to bear children for her, and of a steward being named heir of an estate when there was no blood relative. So, although we can't have a scientific certainty about the existence of Abraham as we do about Hezekiah, the probability that he was a real person is fairly high and there is no need to cast doubt on it. But it is also clear that many of the stories about him have more legend than history in them.

This is how it goes all through the bible. People then simply did not attempt to separate history from legend as we do today. To them they were one and the same.

 

[vossler]

...So, although we can't have a scientific certainty about the existence of Abraham as we do about Hezekiah, the probability that he was a real person is fairly high and there is no need to cast doubt on it. But it is also clear that many of the stories about him have more legend than history in them.

This is how it goes all through the bible. People then simply did not attempt to separate history from legend as we do today. To them they were one and the same.

Quite an interesting response. Is your definition of legend an unverified story or a romanticized myth? Why wouldn't people then not attempt to separate history from legend?

Why would God tell a story that had a real man as the main character but tell the story in such a manner as to cast doubt onto the authenticity of the actual events of the story? Could you please explain what the benefit to such an approach might be? Thanks!

 

[artybloke]

When recording history there is no room for story telling!!!

The writers of Genesis were not recording history. They were telling stories. And while we're on the subject,

Why would God tell a story that had a real man as the main character but tell the story in such a manner as to cast doubt onto the authenticity of the actual events of the story?

God doesn't tell stories. Human beings inspired by God tell stories. God doesn't write; he allows human beings to express themselves and their experience in their own words. The authors of the Bible are not dictation machines.

 

[gluadys]

Quite an interesting response. Is your definition of legend an unverified story or a romanticized myth?

Legend is similar to myth in some ways. The chief differences are that the principle character in a legend is human and that the legend is often built around a core of historical truth.

Why wouldn't people then not attempt to separate history from legend?

Because they were more into story-telling than into objective history. The concept of objective history was not invented yet.

Why would God tell a story that had a real man as the main character but tell the story in such a manner as to cast doubt onto the authenticity of the actual events of the story? Could you please explain what the benefit to such an approach might be? Thanks!

Why would it cast doubt on the authenticity of the actual events to the people who first told and retold the stories? It is only moderns who like objective, only-the-facts history with no admixture of legend who are upset by this way of telling history--even though they accept a lot of history themselves that is told in this way. How many people think they know the history of Julius Caesar, Joan of Arc, or William Wallace because they have seen a movie about them?

And that is the benefit of such an approach. Stories are fun and easy to remember. So if one of God's purposes is to have his teachings remembered from generation to generation among a largely illiterate people, one of the best ways of preserving his message is to embed it in stories.

 

[Critias]

Because they were more into story-telling than into objective history. The concept of objective history was not invented yet.

I think you are judging history with a modern view point by stating if the ancients didn't record history as we do today it isn't history.

Secondly, we do have objective historical accounts of transactions being made in the ancient world. So the concept of "objective history" was being put to use then as well.

As I said, I think you are stating "objective history" with a modern view point and if it isn't satisfied "modernly" it isn't history.

Is the objective here to put the Bible on the same shelf of equality with other myths that have no value or historical truth to them? Is the Bible just another piece of literature, no more valuable than a book by Homer?

I assume you believe it is, but the presentation of the Bible here by some suggests the Bible is really nothing more than another book.

 

[gluadys]

I think you are judging history with a modern view point by stating if the ancients didn't record history as we do today it isn't history.

No, that is what creationists are saying. If the bible doesn't measure up to the standards of history used in modern times, according to creationists, it is false and should be discarded.

TEs are saying we have to understand that what we call objective history today did not exist in biblical times. The separation of story from history had not taken place yet. So we have to read biblical accounts as they were intended to be read in those times, not through the lens of modern expectations of historical writing.

Secondly, we do have objective historical accounts of transactions being made in the ancient world. So the concept of "objective history" was being put to use then as well.

Granted, records were kept. To say that the line between legend and history had not been drawn yet doesn't mean the ancients wrote no history as we understand it. It means that they did not see history and legend as different categories and gave them equal standing.

As I said, I think you are stating "objective history" with a modern view point and if it isn't satisfied "modernly" it isn't history.

No, as I said, that is the creationist POV. That is why it is so important to creationists to substantiate that the creation accounts, the flood account etc. are literal objective history, not myth or legend.

TEs don't require that the biblical writings meet the same criteria as we expect from objective historical writing today, so it is not a problem from a TE perspective if these accounts are not literal history.

Is the objective here to put the Bible on the same shelf of equality with other myths that have no value or historical truth to them? Is the Bible just another piece of literature, no more valuable than a book by Homer?

What!!!??? Since when does Homer have no value or no historical truth. Did you not know that the whole field of archeology was practically created by Heinrich Schliemann when he decided to take Homer seriously and find the city of Troy? Just as archeologists still use the bible to locate ancient cities in Israel and surrounding territory.

And even apart from this practical use, I am amazed that you would consider this masterpiece of ancient Greek literature to be without value.

The bible is literature, no question about that. It can be compared as literature with the literature of other cultures. Even if it were not sacred scripture, it is immensely valuable.

The fact that it is sacred scripture, a record of the revelations of God to the people of Israel and of the Word of God incarnate in Jesus Christ give it an infinite value that outweighs all other literature.

 

[mixin machine]

The writers of Genesis were not recording history. They were telling stories.

So then why the geneology? To me it's an obvious family tree.

 

[vossler]

Because they were more into story-telling than into objective history. The concept of objective history was not invented yet.

Why would it cast doubt on the authenticity of the actual events to the people who first told and retold the stories? It is only moderns who like objective, only-the-facts history with no admixture of legend who are upset by this way of telling history--even though they accept a lot of history themselves that is told in this way. How many people think they know the history of Julius Caesar, Joan of Arc, or William Wallace because they have seen a movie about them?

I'm no historian so I won't pretend to know something I don't, but I don't think people today are all that different from people back then. In other words, all of us want to know where we came from and I have a hard time believing that the people from biblical times felt objective history wasn't any different than mythological. Don't you think they were told a tall tale or two?

Granted, they didn't have the sophisticated means of research that we have today, but that didn't mean they didn't have the same hunger for the truth. You'd have to give me some pretty convincing evidence of that before I could begin to accept it.

And that is the benefit of such an approach. Stories are fun and easy to remember. So if one of God's purposes is to have his teachings remembered from generation to generation among a largely illiterate people, one of the best ways of preserving his message is to embed it in stories.

Yes, when I was but a child stories were fun and easy to remember and I didn't care in the least whether they were true or not. As an adult, however, that if far from the truth. I learn much better from history than I ever would from mythology. What's wrong with the telling of history in an informative easy to understand manner? It tells the story while still holding fast to the truth. It would seem to me that would be the preferable way and therefore God's way.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Look at Herodotus and Thucydides
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/Students/Ben/aristotle.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~ggfst/lecture_10.htm

from: http://www.answers.com/topic/historian

Although we regularly refer to Ancient writers such as Herodotus, called "The father of History" or Tacitus (c. 56–c. 117) as "historians", their works openly mixed oratory, poetry and literature in a way which is incompatible with the contemporary concern for impartiality and objectivity.

The job of the historian has been a significant one for thousands of years to the extent that the definition of history has frequently been simply recorded history. Many of the historians of the past have been called upon to write histories either to furnish a king or a ruling class with a lineage thereby offering it legitimacy or to give a people a cultural heritage and sense of identity. This meant that the works of these historians openly mixed oratory, poetry and literature in a way which is incompatible with the contemporary concern for impartiality and objectivity.

Herodotus, 5th century BC, who is known as "The father of History" for being one of the earliest nameable historians of whose work survive was certainly not free from the faults of early history. He had a particular liking for the tales of the strange and unusual of dubious veracity and in constructing a gripping story despite the available facts. Despite this The Histories of Herodotus display some of the techniques of more modern historians. Interviews with witnesses or more distantly connected oral histories, studying of sources and the weighing of differing accounts with Herodotus pronouncing on the one he regarded as more likely are all features of his work.

this is a mild analysis from a non-historians viewpoint.


....

 

[Floodnut]

None of the mumbo jumbo of the TEs here has succeeded in moving me away from taking the Flood Account, and the Creation account as history. Pronnouncements by these "scholars" that Genesis is not intended as history in our modern sense doesn't move me from seeing that our infallible, incarnate Word of God took the Genesis account as history.

The earth was created about 6000 years ago and then subsequently turned upside down (figure of speech) in a global flood (literal).