The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The Bible: Fact versus Fiction
DVG
No. 1 Honor StudentNether Institute, Evil AcademyRegistered User regular
No. 1 Honor StudentNether Institute, Evil AcademyRegistered User regular
I've recently had a discussion on weather the Bible should be considered a work of fiction or non-fiction with a friend of mine.
He holds that, regardless of religious belief, there are many events and characters in the bible that are historically accurate and thus should be considered non-fiction. I hold that it is, at best, a tome of legends that may have some root in reality, but is largely about the supernatural and some folk base their lives on that, for better or worse.
However, by my natural curiosity, I want to find out as much about the subject that I can. So can anyone point me towards some real research into the "Historical Bible", which is to say something that shows which Biblical Events, Persons and Places have historical evidence to back them up, and which do not. I'm not looking for anything that proves my own viewpoint, nor anything that is spun by one side or the other in a particular way.
Honestly, a cited bullet point list would be the most preferable thing.
He holds that, regardless of religious belief, there are many events and characters in the bible that are historically accurate and thus should be considered non-fiction. I hold that it is, at best, a tome of legends that may have some root in reality, but is largely about the supernatural and some folk base their lives on that, for better or worse.
However, by my natural curiosity, I want to find out as much about the subject that I can. So can anyone point me towards some real research into the "Historical Bible", which is to say something that shows which Biblical Events, Persons and Places have historical evidence to back them up, and which do not. I'm not looking for anything that proves my own viewpoint, nor anything that is spun by one side or the other in a particular way.
Honestly, a cited bullet point list would be the most preferable thing.
Diablo 3 - DVG#1857
DVG on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
False dichotomy?
It's folklore, which is not precisely fiction nor non-fiction.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's kind of an oversimplification, and begs the question.
but the question turns into a religious debate so should be in D&D...
isnt the bible considered a reference book anyway?
However there will always be arguments over the validity of any work cataloging this evidence. Do you need something scientific and peer-reviewed, or would you settle for something complied for Christians, by Christians, as such compilations usually are? There exists real evidence for many biblical events but there are those on both sides who are too eager to prove or disprove the validity thereof. I suppose the only way you could be completely satisfied is to invest a lot of personal, physical research into it.
With a simple google search of "historical evidence of the bible," you can find a plethora of Christian sites listing off the details breathlessly, as if each is irrefutably proven and "science" doesn't want to admit it. You can also find a plethora of sites listing off biblical evidence and systematically poking holes in it in an equally enthusiastic manner.
So I guess what I'm saying is, good luck. I suggest starting with a Christian resource, as you will have no difficulty in finding one, and then trying to independently verify each of their claims, which will be a long process.
You could start there and then begin researching the locations and artifacts mentioned along with the further reading section if you want to start getting into reference. Or you could just accept that at least some of it is historical fact, some may not be, and drop the discussion with your friend. Probably save yourself and him a lot of time, unless you are truly interested in the subject beyond a debate, then go right ahead because there is obviously more material on this than any other subject on Earth, I'd imagine.
The more I read of it the more questionable the paper seems to me, at least where it tries to explain how various biblical pieces line up, but the idea of the Mediterranean Sea having been a desert until the Atlantic broke through a 3,000 foot natural wall and filled it in under 9 months is pretty awesome regardless.
There's also a theory about this being the bosporus into the black sea, which seems just as unlikely to me.
One point is that taking the bible as a historical reference is that, like all historical sources, it is biased, but I would think that apart from the most basic facts it is far too biased to be of any use.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
What is a docudrama out of curiosity fiction or non fiction?
Depends on how spiced up they get. Some of them are outright fiction to start with, some keep the spice to entertainment or jokes but keep the fiction out of it, but a lot of the better ones are still far enough off base that they're definitely not nonfiction, but it's hard to call them fiction at the same time.
The bible would probably fall on the middle area, possibly leaning somewhat one way or the other depending on how you want to treat the bulk of Genesis, and depending on what research you go by - over the years, disagreement over interpretation and so forth has only grown with newly uncovered or translated documents, and there are a great many who outright reject those other sources (and considering how many, both supporting and disputing the bible, have been discredited or found to have been altered at some point through the Middle Ages, there's justification there)
Some events can be shoehorned into natural and human history, there was an ancient tower (Etemnanki) that may have inspired Babel on some level, and there's two or three known megafloods that may be related to the story of Noah. Some key events are independently recorded in some fashion, but there's others that are glaringly absent in the recorded history of the civilizations that should have been drastically impacted, like the escape from Egypt. Even in confirmed events, there's often discrepancies or some key part of the event that isn't confirmed - you can't really draw a line and say one source is fiction and one isn't. Even in unconfirmed cases, you can't say that the events in Exodus didn't happen, an error in retelling four thousand years ago may have gotten the wrong city here, the wrong river there, and now you have a loose end in history that can't be connected to a firm event. Doesn't make it fiction.
Edit: It probably would be best for this thread to be moved to D&D, IMO - there's no clean answer to any of it, and it's pretty much guaranteed to go into bad territory.
I don't know what to say to this actually, because it kind of goes both ways. It was written as fact, if that helps, but the understanding was limited. Some of it (but not as much as you might think) is sheer postulation, other parts are more philosophical, and some bits are indeed historically accurate.
I'm not sure the OP is really on the money with a 'one or the other' decision. The 'Bible' is a collection of works, and should be regarded as such. It's 66 different flavors, and some taste different than others.
Genesis for example, contains early history and migration accounts, which are accurate to a point- those people moved around that territory etc. The creation story is a story, presented as fact, but with roots in a precursor oral tradition. Unless Adam was a journalist, nobody would have been around to document his life. Did Adam invent writing? No. So obviously its a tale passed from one person to another down through the ages.
Was there a guy named Adam, and did he live somewhere near Africa? Maybe. Most likely what happened is when sombody was tracing back the geneology, they ran out of ancestors, and called the nameless dude 'that guy' which is what Adam actually means as a name. This happens in tribal creation myths all the time in other parts of the world, especially when there is no recorded history.
Some bits are definately true. There was a guy named Abraham. He did stuff. Et tu Moses, Joseph, Isaac, Solomon, Obed, Esther, Noah, King Herod, Luke, and Jesus. Most of what follows after Genesis is a geneology and the formation of the middle eastern kingdoms, rules to be followed at the time, and then one starts getting into back into storytime land.
Those prophets were a whackass bunch. But there really were prophets back then. They had schools, you could take that shit up as a hobby. They were essentially forecast analysts steeped in superstition. There an interesting tale which suggests one of them was possibly abducted by aliens, or an ancient flying machine. Is it true? Well, its kind of true. They thought it was true. These days we feel we have a much better idea of what is actually going on, and we're not always content with the level of detail provided back then.
I mean, imagine you're Johnny Bronzeage, walking down the desert path, and a Chinese warrior swoops down out of nowhere in a rocket kite and takes off with your buddy. How do you describe that? How do you explain what happened there? Whatever you come up with is probably not exactly accurate. You make your best guess when you tell the story around the campfire, and somebody, years later, writes it down. They say, 'ya, we knew this guy who totally ascended into heaven on a chariot of fire. Smart guy too. Always sayin stuff.' Are they lying? Is it fact? Is it fiction?
Most of the named books (named for people) are in depth stories about specific people for specific reasons. They may be embellished, but they probably happened. Since the point of the story is the message of story, rather than its historical accuracy, I doubt they are going to be as on the spot with the facts, but also keep in mind that they don't really try to give any out either. They are stories.
The 'Gospels' are also stories, however Luke, a doctor, made a point of providing historical context. His notes seem accurate, in that he was where he said he was, and proved it. He was a real person. Whether or not his deductions as a person are accurate is up for debate, but buddy certainly existed, as did the people he mentions. Most of the following books aren't records at all, but letters to specific places. Those places also existed.
The last book is written in code, and nobody is entirely sure just what the fuck is being said. It appears to be a description of a vision. It says as much. So did buddy accurately describe his vision? Who knows, theres only one person who could tell us that, and he be quite dead. Some people certainly try to take is as fact, which is a pretty dangerous thing to do, but a realistic approach suggests that this particular book stands out from the rest in terms of factual analysis and general coherency.
Anyways, I suppose the short answer is to say that it depends which book within the collection you decide to look at. The accuracy and relevancy are going to vary quite a bit depending on the writer and the reasons he is writing, just like any other book.
You need to read the bible with open eyes, it contains many historical facts, but also mythology and forgeries. The Bible that you can buy at a bookstore is just a compendium, but it is mutilated, many scriptures have been removed because they were considered heretic or just apocryphal.
For example, the story of the Universal Flood comes from several sources, it is not an original bible event per say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
The problem with trying to shove the Bible as a fiction or non-fiction work is that it is not simply a book that was written. It contains many works that are not things we normally categorize as fiction or non-fiction.
Leviticus is a collection of laws governing the Israelite people. It details stuff like how many animals need to be sacrificed or how much of a fine needs to be paid for X crime.
Song of Songs is a love poem from king Solomon to a girl.
All or almost all of the books in the New Testament are letters written by the author to a recipient based on their personal experiences.
None of these are things that you'll find shelved in the fiction or non-fiction parts of a library.
You can research individual events mentioned in the Bible, but the Bible as a whole defies simple classification due to the varied nature of its books.
Steam Profile
3DS: 3454-0268-5595 Battle.net: SteelAngel#1772
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH