Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: L,TOWM

Huh? Historical accuracy does not correlate to evidence for the Word of God. It simply means that someone accurately recorded historical events. If he embellishes said events with references to the Almighty, one cannot infer that the Almighty exists. For example, the Greeks and Egyptians were pretty good about making records of just about everything under the Sun. Simply because they peppered their works with references to their gods does not, in any way, corroborate the exitence of those gods.


240 posted on 05/25/2005 10:29:25 AM PDT by Junior (“Even if you are one-in-a-million, there are still 6,000 others just like you.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies ]


To: Junior; L,TOWM
Huh? Historical accuracy does not correlate to evidence for the Word of God. It simply means that someone accurately recorded historical events. If he embellishes said events with references to the Almighty, one cannot infer that the Almighty exists. For example, the Greeks and Egyptians were pretty good about making records of just about everything under the Sun. Simply because they peppered their works with references to their gods does not, in any way, corroborate the exitence of those gods.

Similarly, verification of the many historic events and places detailed in "Gone With the Wind" does not in any way bolster the claim that Rhett Butler and Scarlett O'Hara actually existed.

Authors (of any time period) commonly write their stories and characters amid actual places and events. Historical accuracy of any of these books hardly supports the truth of *all* their contents.

246 posted on 05/25/2005 10:37:03 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies ]

To: Junior
Historical accuracy does not correlate to evidence for the Word of God.

No, but glaring empirical inaccuracy would detract from any other claims made.

It simply means that someone accurately recorded historical events.

And if the one making the accurate historical makes additional statements, which on their face are too fantastic to be believed and are non verifiable, what do we do with that? Particularly if both the material that can be verified and the fantastic, non verifiable materials are corroborated by others?

If he embellishes said events with references to the Almighty, one cannot infer that the Almighty exists. For example, the Greeks and Egyptians were pretty good about making records of just about everything under the Sun. Simply because they peppered their works with references to their gods does not, in any way, corroborate the exitence of those gods.

Now is when I get frustrated not being able to talk face to face. I wish we could have a free flowing dialogue so that I fully understood what you mean by "embellishes", "references to the Almighty" and "peppered their works with references to the gods".

I have in mind Homer's Illiad, but that would not really be appropriate for our discussion, since Homer never claimed to relate that saga under divine inspiration, nor claimed that it was the "Word of God". Undoubtedly, some aspects of the story are true and that has been proved by archeology. But Homer never claimed prophecy, revelation of God's will, or that he was writing the divinely inspired Word of God. The Bible actually raises the bar to that level.

At least in Greek mythology, I am not aware of any collected body of work, analagous to the Pentateuch, that claims "thus sayeth Zeus". I am less certain about any such collection the Egyptians assembled; I would be interested in seeing that if it exists.

264 posted on 05/25/2005 11:03:58 AM PDT by L,TOWM (Liberals, The Other White Meat [Born in California, Texan by the Grace of God.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson