> Worthy of study, perhaps. No different than the > myths of any other > culture. We don't treat the myths of apollo or > mithas as history. The > real history is what the dogma of being trvth or > historical of these > myths/doctrines caused people to do.
First of all, you assume the Bible is ONLY about the "mythology" of Judaism/Christianity. It is not. It is actually a SET of several different books, at least one of which is historical in nature. You criticized the book previously as NOT being verifiable by other evidence, which is not true. We know that there WERE hebrews in Egypt, verified by evidence from Egyptian writings. We know that the Hebrew people moved into modern-day Palestine. This is also in the Bible. I'm not a bible scholar, nor is the Ancient near east an area of specialty for me. But there are at least 2 examples that proves your position as being unsupportable. Your problem, however, is that for you there are only 2 interpretations (from my perspective, at least): Literal and Mythical. There is indeed a third: it involves critical thinking and weighing the evidence presented in the Bible based on other evidence and what is known about the period. Some parts of the Bible cannot be verifiable, some parts are unsupportable, but some parts ARE. A good historian knows how to read and evaluate these sources, and most importantly, knows how to read them IN CONTEXT with the material. The Old Testament, FREX, is a series of histories, stories, and other material that are essentially Oral traditions finally written down after hundreds of years of being passed down verbally. To read these materials out of that context would create false conclusions, not just on "Biblical" history, but with regards to History itself. This is why I called you essentially a Fundamentalist. You look at the Bible as something thats supposed to read like a High School history book: Historical Fact Writ Large, Unassailable, and Unquestionable. When you discover that's not the case, you dismiss it as being pure rubbish. So I tell you that you're not reading it correctly, and perhaps you are not reading history (in general) correctly either. Of course you are so biased that it doesn't matter what I say, or anyone else. No matter how much I suggest that the Bible is a valid source of history, as valid as Geoffrey of Monmouths _The Kings of England_, Caesar's _The Conquest of Gaul_, or Thucydides' _The Peloponessian War_, I think you will be convinced that it is utter tripe. And that's your loss. Even as an agnostic I recognize the value of the Bible in historical inquiry. Damon. > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > > ===== ------------------------------------------------------------ Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: ------------------------------------------------------------ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
