Hebrew civilization

[Maverick667]

But people like Alexander the Great can be confirmed to have existed...

people like Solomon, David or Jesus cannot... at least not simply because it says so in the Bible...

 

[warpus]

As you probably know, the Bible is a collection of books, and I never claimed that their was an abundance of reliable accounts of supernatural events. Just that dismissing a book simply based upon the fact that it contains records of supernatural events reveals a bias.

It's not a bias. Once again, what other book that contains supernatural events would you say is historically accurate?

If the only one you can think of is the Bible, then YOU are the one harbouring bias.

Why? Because you've never seen or experienced them? You can't prove that they didn't happen just as I'm not able to prove here that they did. I will say that someone who prides rational thinking should not dismiss something simply based upon their own experiences or the experiences of their own generation.

So just because we can't prove that it didn't happen, we must accept it as historically accurate? So then I'd assume that you believe in Unicorns, angels, witches, Zeus, and that Hercules existed and was a half-god?

The burden of proof lies on you - the person making the extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

 

[mitsho]

@warpus, but the bible isn't one single book. It's a collection of stories, allegories, histories, poems, songs, sagas, etc. ... There are certain parts that are historical, namely the kings. And that's a fact. The point is that there are stories with supernatural events, but these are mostly allegories, Garden Eden, the Elude, Soddom and Gommorha are prime example, let's not start about the ten punishments of Egypt.... Take the psalms of Solomons, it uses a clearly pictoresque language there, this is of course not to be taken literally. Sheba&Solomon-story is nothing than a story, a fairytale with its moral teaching. The point is that we can take certain parts historically (Davids Genealogy for example, the war with the Philistines) and that we can take certain parts "psychologically" ("Floods had made a big impression on the Ancient Hebrews" "When you grow up, you lose the shame and must leave the Garden Eden of Childhood", etc. ...). Thus

@Maverick, Then why the hell should we believe a Greek historian more than a Jewish one? Just why? Let's take your example of Alexander. We have no direct knowledge of him as all the ones that have written contemporarily are lost (namely Kallisthenes, Nearchos, Ptolemaios, Aristobul, Chares, Onesikritos, Epiphos). Kleitarchos then summarized all these (hi)stories into one, but got lost on the way to. Today we have on the one hand the Alexander vulgata based on Kleitarchos, the names here are Diodor, Plutarch and Curtius Rufus. On the other hand we have Arrian, who states that he used a scientific approachm using (afaik) only direct sources of Ptolemaios and Aristobul and only the parts where they are in agreement, (with "exception where it seemed reasonable").
So, what can we really trust about that? We know that there was an Alexander, the rest gets quite quickly much more diffuse.

The Bible seems to be a similar case, we also have several authors thus backing each other up where they agree. Do you see what I am getting at? Ancient history is difficult, very difficult. Solomon and David however are confirmed historical persons.

@Brentimus As warpus just said, you're turning the argument the wrong way. It's not us that have to prove that God can part water. Water stays normally on the ground, so why should it raise. Or how? I haven't seen it thus I can't believe it. Or else turn around, there's a pink elephant dancing behind you! You don't see it? Oh, it just has gone away, now he's again here. Turn around quickly. You don't believe me? Now prove me that I'm wrong. As I state that there are pink elephants, there are. YOU have to prove me wrong.

(got it?

)

mick

PS: btw. Who would sign a Petition to add that smilie to CFC's smilie list?

 

[warpus]

@warpus, but the bible isn't one single book. It's a collection of stories, allegories, histories, poems, songs, sagas, etc. ... There are certain parts that are historical, namely the kings. And that's a fact. The point is that there are stories with supernatural events, but these are mostly allegories, Garden Eden, the Elude, Soddom and Gommorha are prime example, let's not start about the ten punishments of Egypt.... Take the psalms of Solomons, it uses a clearly pictoresque language there, this is of course not to be taken literally. Sheba&Solomon-story is nothing than a story, a fairytale with its moral teaching. The point is that we can take certain parts historically (Davids Genealogy for example, the war with the Philistines) and that we can take certain parts "psychologically" ("Floods had made a big impression on the Ancient Hebrews" "When you grow up, you lose the shame and must leave the Garden Eden of Childhood", etc. ...). Thus

I have no problem using parts of the Bible that are supported by other historical works (ie. not by other parts of the Bible) as historical documents.. but the rest? You just don't know what is historical, what is a legend.. and people can't even agree on what actually happened and what was meant to be taken literally.. Hell, some people even believe that Genesis is to be taken literally!

As a whole, the Bible was not meant to be a historical document. As such, the parts of it which are not supported by other documents (and/or archeological evidence) should not be used as such.

 

[mitsho]

You have no idea, don't you? Do I have to begin anew? Or would you just rather look it up in secondary scientific literature? Because I feel I'm waisting my time here. But we can agree to disagree here, ...

Ok, then tell me why should we take herodot literally? I'm sure I can pick things in his work that are nonsense. Or Platon, shall we dismiss him because of Atlantis? Hell, Troy is a nice story and it has been proven to be real. (see Schliemann and co.), but nevertheless there are gigantic water snakes in the story, there are gods fighting gods, there is action, there is literature. But it nevertheless is true. We cannot dismiss the thing because they have used figurative language on the way, hell it even does make less sense when the "book" is not by one author, but hundreds...
So, and another thing is that - by chance - the Bible got proven by other for example archaelogical sources (as the literary ones are - if we follow your argumentation - as much unreliable). Or rather certain parts of it. And thus we can deduce that all is reliable (some are factual, some are literature).

You said that there is a dispute going on what is reliable and what not. You said that people cannot agree. People don't have to, the scientists do. As I don't know the exact numbers, but I would think that there are only minor - really really minor - numbers of actual contested texts.

Satisfied?

One last sentence: If we would be that critical with ancient sources at any time as you are here, we would know nothing!

EDIT: sorry, I just rechecked and saw that you might get the wrong impression: I don't think the literary Saga Homer is telling is the absolute truth, but there existed a Troy, etc. ... It's up to common sense to decide what is factual, what is true. But then again, what is truth in a historical context? As a History student I can tell you that there doesn't exist a truth, a history. There doesn't exist a reality.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

The Bible has been proven more reliable than any other historical documents produced..

o rly? I find it hard to believe.

 

[Brentimus]

Maverick, as Mitsho has pointed out, David and Solomon's existance is just as substantiated as that of Alexander. If your argument is we can't believe they existed just because the record is contained in a book (Bible, stemming from the word biblios or book) then you throw out most of accepted ancient history too.

It's not a bias. Once again, what other book that contains supernatural events would you say is historically accurate?

If the only one you can think of is the Bible, then YOU are the one harbouring bias.

Once again, I have --never-- claimed that there is another book with supernatural events that I consider historically accurate. There doesn't have to be another example. If you said guy's are always stronger than girls, I don't have to give you two examples of girls that are stronger than guys. One would disprove your statement. In other words, just because its true in one circumstance doesn't mean it's true in more than one circumstance.

The fact is, the flood, or diluge, is a recorded supernatural event that is shared by many, many cultures world-wide. Including Babylonian documents, which I, in this narrow circumstance based on the evidence, would conclude to be accurate.

You could argue I was harboring bias if I outright dismissed a document without weighing the evidence to support it. However, I have not dismissed any documents in this discussion.

So just because we can't prove that it didn't happen, we must accept it as historically accurate?

No, we must weigh the --evidence--.

So then I'd assume that you believe in Unicorns, angels, witches, Zeus, and that Hercules existed and was a half-god?

If you come to the conclusion that all of these don't exist without weighing the evidence you are exhibiting a bias and ignorance. But no, I don't believe in unicorn's, yet .

The burden of proof lies on you - the person making the extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

So. . .when some dreamers thought of flying machines they should be ignored until the day that someone builds one? It's kind of silly to think that this generation has all the answers. I for one, believe there is extraordinary evidence supporting the Bible. But you can't prove history, you can only weigh the evidence. When everything points to one conclusion and you ignore it because it doesn't fit you own rationale you are exhibiting a bias whether your right or wrong.

 

[Duuk]

o rly? I find it hard to believe.

You being ignorant of the historical research doesn't make it less true.

 

[warpus]

You said that there is a dispute going on what is reliable and what not. You said that people cannot agree. People don't have to, the scientists do. As I don't know the exact numbers, but I would think that there are only minor - really really minor - numbers of actual contested texts.

Yep, if actual scientists can agree that something in the Bible is to be accepted as a historical accuracy, then I will not object.. but I will not object not on the basis that the story is in the Bible & that the Bible is a good historical resource.. but rather because the story in question has been verified by historians/scientists/whoever and is accepted as a valid historical fact by the community of experts who deal with this stuff.. which would be historians, I suppose.

My point really is that if any story in the Bible was ever accepted as historical fact (and a couple have been), then.. how did this happen? There must have been archeological evidence and/or other historical sources verifying the story as fact. and that's my point in the first place. The Bible is not a valid historical document on its own.

 

[warpus]

The fact is, the flood, or diluge, is a recorded supernatural event that is shared by many, many cultures world-wide. Including Babylonian documents, which I, in this narrow circumstance based on the evidence, would conclude to be accurate.

A flood is not a supernatural event. Floods happen all the time

If you are talking about a world-wide flood - one never happened.

No, we must weigh the --evidence--

Yeah, which involves checking archeological evidence as well as other supporting historical documents!

And if the claim is extraordinary (say.. something supernatural), then the evidence needs to be extraordinary as well.

If you come to the conclusion that all of these don't exist without weighing the evidence you are exhibiting a bias and ignorance. But no, I don't believe in unicorn's, yet

There is evidence that unicorns exist? There isn't.. which is why there is nothing to weigh - which is why I can dismiss unicorns as fantasy

This happens with other supernatural claims without evidence as well.

So. . .when some dreamers thought of flying machines they should be ignored until the day that someone builds one? It's kind of silly to think that this generation has all the answers. I for one, believe there is extraordinary evidence supporting the Bible. But you can't prove history, you can only weigh the evidence. When everything points to one conclusion and you ignore it because it doesn't fit you own rationale you are exhibiting a bias whether your right or wrong.

Dreamers were dreaming of flying machines.. well.. we know that things can fly.. look out your window! There's birds, insects, and all sorts of animals flying.. Dreaming of flight is not so far fetched.

I'm nor saying we have all the answers, but extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence.

If you claimed that you could fly by flapping your hands.. should I believe you?

 

[Brentimus]

A flood is not a supernatural event. Floods happen all the time

If you are talking about a world-wide flood - one never happened.

Yes, I was refering to the world wide flood that is a traditional part of most of the worlds cultural oral and written tradition (including culture's isolated from one another for thousands of years). I consider this a supernatural event by modern standards and believe there is ample evidence to support it occured.

Yeah, which involves checking archeological evidence as well as other supporting historical documents!

And if the claim is extraordinary (say.. something supernatural), then the evidence needs to be extraordinary as well.

I agree.

There is evidence that unicorns exist? There isn't.. which is why there is nothing to weigh - which is why I can dismiss unicorns as fantasy

This happens with other supernatural claims without evidence as well.

Right, there isn't any credible evidence I know of that suggests unicorns exist.

Dreamers were dreaming of flying machines.. well.. we know that things can fly.. look out your window! There's birds, insects, and all sorts of animals flying.. Dreaming of flight is not so far fetched.

Yes, but for centuries educated people thought it was impossible. Popular science has been known to be wrong. In fact, quite often.

If you claimed that you could fly by flapping your hands.. should I believe you?

Well, only if I was telling the truth. Boy would that be fun.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Wow... this thread has really gone OT. Too much so. I see a "Thread Closed" somewhere in the near future.

 

[jeps]

What did the Hebrews ACCOMPLISH though? Not dying isn't much of an accomplishment. What did they do besides have a profound love of superstition?

You mean OTHER than writing the basis of ALL north american lawbooks [talmud and mishna], the largest faith in the world, conquer technologically and numerically superior foes, escape from slavery, as well as contributing greatly to the world's culture?

Oh, and not dying is a HUGE accomplishment when the world UNITES TO KILL YOU

As such, they didn't make lasting contributions to law, art, or science

Are you, have you, or do you know anybody studying law at a north american university (not sure about europe)? Because in the universities, they MAKE YOU STUDY JUDAIC TEXTS (talmud israeili, written when they still lived in Israel beore the diaspora) because it is the basis of MODERN LAW.

As well, depending on a Hebrew limited or Hebrew-Jewish-Israeli Civ, Science and art are out of the picture as well. Marc Chagall and his famed windows had a large impact on art.

as for science, Israel is one of the top scientific nations in the world. if you ever used a cellphone, windows XP, a pentium processor, ICQ, AIM, or many other things, it is from Israel.

As for a HEBREW civ, in addition to law, the art and architecture of the temples was imitated in many CATHEDRALS, still seen today.

 

[Rancid Sushi]

You mean OTHER than writing the basis of ALL north american lawbooks [talmud and mishna], the largest faith in the world, conquer technologically and numerically superior foes, escape from slavery, as well as contributing greatly to the world's culture?

Oh, and not dying is a HUGE accomplishment when the world UNITES TO KILL YOU



Are you, have you, or do you know anybody studying law at a north american university (not sure about europe)? Because in the universities, they MAKE YOU STUDY JUDAIC TEXTS (talmud israeili, written when they still lived in Israel beore the diaspora) because it is the basis of MODERN LAW.

As well, depending on a Hebrew limited or Hebrew-Jewish-Israeli Civ, Science and art are out of the picture as well. Marc Chagall and his famed windows had a large impact on art.

as for science, Israel is one of the top scientific nations in the world. if you ever used a cellphone, windows XP, a pentium processor, ICQ, AIM, or many other things, it is from Israel.

As for a HEBREW civ, in addition to law, the art and architecture of the temples was imitated in many CATHEDRALS, still seen today.

Quoted for truth. The Hebrew civilization has historically done a lot more for the world than most of the little jank nations suggested in the "Expansion Civlizations" thread.

 

[Antilogic]

If anything, I would stray from the modern name of Israel, and stick with Judea (sp?) or another name for the Hebrew tribes that was more common in antiquity.

However, I'm going to have to comment on some of what was mentioned above. The Hebrews are not solely responsible for the modern law and the university system. Many political systems throughout Europe were inspired by pagan Greek texts by Plato and Aristotle as much as from Hebrew texts. The Lyceum and Academy established in Athens were models for future centers of learning for years to come, and they were derived from the ideas of the "Ionian Rennaissance" (I put it in quotes because it's called a rebirth, but in fact it isn't a rebirth of anything), which were not Jewish (mostly pagan Greek). I could also cite Hammurabi's Code as another surviving non-Jewish code of laws that has indeed influenced the shape of law for years after it was written.

Architecturally, you may note, Greek and Roman styles still have immense influence (look at Washington DC, and look at the architecture).

However, I agree with what Rancid Sushi says: they are still quite notable. More than anything, these two arguments I made say because the Hebrews have influence that can be comparable to the Greeks, Romans, and Babylonians (all of which are in or will be included in the game), a Hebrew civilization has a place as well.


On a side note, is Judaism the largest faith in the world? That surprised me...are you refering to number of worshippers or age?

 

[flyingchicken]

Judaism the largest faith in the world? I believe someone meant "the most easily recognizable roots of the largest and quite influential faiths" in the world.

Anyway, with the arguments placed thus far, I believe Judea (Israel is too modern and conflict-ridden) has a better place in the world of Civilization than at least the Bantu people under Shaka Zulu.

 

[Antilogic]

Why the Zulu were picked over any other Africans is beyond me--I think it's name recognition. Mali was a good one to go with, but they could have picked Abyssinia or even Ghana over the Zulu. I'll end my rant, though.

 

[warpus]

Why the Zulu were picked over any other Africans is beyond me--I think it's name recognition.

Good marketing by the Brits.

 

[kcbrett5]

@warpus, but the bible isn't one single book. It's a collection of stories, allegories, histories, poems, songs, sagas, etc. ... There are certain parts that are historical, namely the kings. And that's a fact. The point is that there are stories with supernatural events, but these are mostly allegories, Garden Eden, the Elude, Soddom and Gommorha are prime example, let's not start about the ten punishments of Egypt.... Take the psalms of Solomons, it uses a clearly pictoresque language there, this is of course not to be taken literally. Sheba&Solomon-story is nothing than a story, a fairytale with its moral teaching. The point is that we can take certain parts historically (Davids Genealogy for example, the war with the Philistines) and that we can take certain parts "psychologically".

You can't just say the parts that aren't extraordinary are true and the rest are stories. That is far too convenient. By that measure, I can make the case that Stephen King is the greatest reporter of our times just by picking parts out of his books that are true, and ignoring all the mythical stuff.

By your own admission, there are many parts that are just stories. How can we tell the difference? How do you know some of the "historical" stuff isn't also just a story where nothing supernatural happens. They could just as easily have made some stories up with no supernatural events as you already admit that they made up stories with supernatural events.

All we have for evidence is your say so. I think I'll need more proof than that to accept your argument. No offense.

 

[kcbrett5]

Yes, but for centuries educated people thought it was impossible. Popular science has been known to be wrong. In fact, quite often.

Da vinci drew flying machines in the 1500's. Although educated people did not know how to build flying machines, that is very different from saying they thought they were impossible to build.

So you are willing to discount the collective wisdom of all scientists over the last several thousand years because they make mistakes, revise their theories based on new evidence, and continue to study. Yet you accept on faith the wisdom of men who lived many thousands of years ago, wrote some stories down that became the basis of a religion, and never alter them in any way to account for new evidence? Very wise indeed.