This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The thing about "historical criticism" of the bible.

#1OrangeWizardPosted 7/21/2013 7:54:46 PM
If you treat the bible like it's "just a book", then guess what? You're going to come to the conclusion that "it's just a book".
Especially if you treat the bible as 66 separate books, then there's no way you're going to come to the conclusion that it's A) all one coherent message and B) Inspired of God.

The bible alone does not prove itself, and it especially does not prove itself when it's cut up into pieces. Expecting it to is silly and lambasting it when it doesn't is equally silly.


Say you have a guy who writes a book about some extraordinary things. Say he wrote it, signed and dated it 100 years ago, and it contains knowledge from 10 years ago, and it was discovered today.

The "historical criticism" would claim that the book couldn't have been written any time but 10 years ago, since it would be "impossible" for someone to see into the future.

This is all logical and reasonable. It's not, however, true.

As with any science, testing it against the supernatural is useless.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#2AynRandySavagePosted 7/21/2013 8:08:35 PM
The "historical criticism" would claim that the book couldn't have been written any time but 10 years ago, since it would be "impossible" for someone to see into the future.

Is this an analogue to a specific part of the Bible? Because I can't think of anything that I'd say is comparable.
#3DeadPresidents2Posted 7/21/2013 8:08:44 PM
Oh man, that last line is going to get torrrrrnnnn uppppp.
---
Me to this random girl : Mygirlfriendsayswhat? Random girl: What?
Me: Zing!
#4OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/21/2013 8:16:38 PM
AynRandySavage posted...

Is this an analogue to a specific part of the Bible?


No.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#5Faust_8Posted 7/21/2013 9:33:26 PM
Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of literary criticism that investigates the origins of ancient text in order to understand "the world behind the text".[1]

The primary goal of historical criticism is to ascertain the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. This may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events which the text describes. An ancient text may also serve as a document, record or source for reconstructing the ancient past which may also serve as a chief interest to the historical critic. In regards to Semitic biblical interpretation, the historical critic would be able to interpret "The Literature of Israel" as well as "The History of Israel".[2]


Why are you acting like historical criticism's only purpose is to prove/disprove JesusGod?
---
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
#6AynRandySavagePosted 7/21/2013 9:34:25 PM
Well then it's not really appropriate here
#7Faust_8Posted 7/21/2013 9:36:17 PM
Also...

Yeah, what IS the thing with historical criticism of the Bible?
---
In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.
#8Imperator420Posted 7/22/2013 1:40:32 AM
OrangeWizard posted...
If you treat the bible like it's "just a book", then guess what? You're going to come to the conclusion that "it's just a book".
Especially if you treat the bible as 66 separate books, then there's no way you're going to come to the conclusion that it's A) all one coherent message and B) Inspired of God.


This is correct. If you treat a book as just a book, or 66 separate books as 66 separate books, you will not come to the conclusion that it's a coherent message inspired by God.

If you treat a book as a tree or a cow, all different possibilities open up.

The bible alone does not prove itself, and it especially does not prove itself when it's cut up into pieces. Expecting it to is silly and lambasting it when it doesn't is equally silly.


Why is it silly to expect a book making claims to have some proof of its contents? I read a book about Napoleon the other day and it had references to accredited works, Napoleon's letters and memoirs, historical records, etc. The author wasn't even omniscient or anything.

Say you have a guy who writes a book about some extraordinary things. Say he wrote it, signed and dated it 100 years ago, and it contains knowledge from 10 years ago, and it was discovered today.

The "historical criticism" would claim that the book couldn't have been written any time but 10 years ago, since it would be "impossible" for someone to see into the future.

This is all logical and reasonable. It's not, however, true.


Yes, it is. People can't see into the future. If you fork over money to a fortuneteller, you are being swindled with a probability of 1.

As with any science, testing it against the supernatural is useless.


That's because science examines the properties of the physical universe. To learn about the supernatural, you probably want to study folklore or comparative mythology.
---
I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast ... for it repenteth me that I have made them. - Genesis 7
#9OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/22/2013 3:12:41 AM(edited)
Faust_8 posted...

Why are you acting like historical criticism's only purpose is to prove/disprove JesusGod?


I'm not. What makes you think I am?

Yeah, what IS the thing with historical criticism of the Bible?

I told you what the thing is. Did you even read the opening post?
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#10OrangeWizard(Topic Creator)Posted 7/22/2013 3:17:32 AM
Imperator420 posted...

Why is it silly to expect a book making claims to have some proof of its contents?

It's not. However, you're looking for proof in all the wrong places.

Yes, it is. People can't see into the future. If you fork over money to a fortuneteller, you are being swindled with a probability of 1.

Here's what you're doing:

Teacher: Johnny had three apples. He gave one to Sarah. How many apples does Johnny have?
Imperator420: JOHNNY NEVER HAD ANY APPLES!

It didn't fly in elementary school. It's not going to fly here.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive