fatpie42

Let's get this straight. Of all the details in the Tanakh, the only bits we can take seriously are the geographical locations? How the hell does that count as an accurate account of history? The Tanakh records events. It does not simply map out where the Jews were at what time.

If the story of the Exodus is simply changed to "at some point there were Jews in Egypt" it isn't the Exodus story any more.

1) You've been told this already. You don't take an account, presume it is true and then accept it as true until contrary evidence arises. Rather you assess possible biases, writing styles, and you compare with other texts around the same location and period.

2) The point about the FX miracles is that we clearly cannot accept everything in the Tanakh at face value. You yourself have admitted that the Noah story cannot be accepted in the way it is described. Similarly, as I already noted, the idea that the human race began with one man and one woman has been proven to be scientifically impossible. If the complete implausibility of the accounts does not count against their historicity, what does?

IamJoseph

Whatever the criteria, relativity must apply. I don't ask of one more than another - this is my claim to more evidence applies with the hebrew writings than others.

If numerous things are evidenced in one source, and if nothing is clearly disproven, then the whole does get credibility; and the reverse also applies - if nothing can be evidenced of any one source - the whole suffers.

IamJoseph

Not a valid conclusion: the crime/sin of David is clearly listed, as opposed what he ate for breakfast. This is what I mean by the listing of those factors which apply to and impact for future generations, as opposed a story book for its own times only - the historical items are incidental and subserviant to the universal applications. Adultry is the standout factor here, and that a king is not immune from the law.

The term holy is not why they target this source, as opposed its historicity and correctness - so it is a surprise when this is not seen as far more blatantly applying to the Gospels and Quran.

IamJoseph

Why not? What are you saying is not historical or accurate: a regional flood; the protection of one's possessions; the name of mount Ararat in the same region; the dis-hisotrcal name of Noah or that a vine was a commonplace harvest here?


Interestingly, the Noah story gives great engineering lessons of a ship's required ratios and dimensions for stability - and in such an early report too!

jon-eli

They are necessary for context... you can't tell a story in a vacuum. The supposedly historical content, that which you say is incidental, could very well just be a setting, a concocted backdrop, like cardboard set-pieces on a stage, put there only draw your attention from the fact that you are watching a play in a theatre and not real-time documentary footage of historical events. You can't conclude that peripheral data is factual merely by virtue of its peripherality.

But the Tanakh is the foundation stone of Judaism, Chirstianity, and Islam (to a lesser extent) as well. If you attack it... well that's 3 birds with one stone. It doesn't surprise me in the least. Judaism and Christianity are exempt from splash-damage from criticism of the Qur'an. Not to mention the fact that not terribly many people are qualified to examine the Qur'an. The New Testament cops its fair share of grief from skeptics, but the NT makes constant allusion and reference to the Tanakh. It's like a homing-beacon... you always wind-up in Tanakh territory, every damn time.

IamJoseph

This is the error made in depiciting what is historical and valid. The exodus story is *NOT* about some FX miracles - which reduces it to a form of paganism and how powerful is your god than mine. Instead, this event is about the most precious premise of all: inalien human rights and the right of Liberty. The exodus story does not loose any meaning without the miracles - these are irrelevent however the Hebrews left.

Miracles have small lasting impact, and humans tire of it the instant after witnessing it -far more impacting is when things go through nature and realtime [like 40 years in a desert swimming in the laws of the Hebrew five books]. We see this in the turnaround of the Hebrews after witnessing the greatest of miracles - when thirst struck, they wanted to return back for Egypt, miracles or no; the reverse occured when they were told to stop studying the books - its time to enter the promised land: they preferred to foresake the land and keep swimming in the desert instead.

The exodus story looses its perspective when seen only via reported miracles. The issue of proving historical factors may not prove miracles either way - miracles are not just not provable, but more importantly, they are not important - they should'nt be, unless there is nothing else there! They have no impact on this generation at all. The laws do. So if your asking me to prove miracles - I can't. More importatly, I find them a boring, deflective issue. The issue of a burning bush is not my notion of excitement - what message came forth is.


E.g. - apart from FX miracles?


No sir, what I said is the texts describes it correctly - when read correctly.


I say there is no alternative to the first human possessing both male and female aspects - and that this duality possession would have to have emerged simultainiously, with a program embedded in the essence [seed/cell/gene] of that duality. I fully agree with Genesis here. My science and math is not deficient either. You can prove me wrong by reducing that to any example in our midst and showing otherwise. That is what you should say to anyone who says otherwise.

IamJoseph

I invite you to attack the Tanakh on its laws or its given historical factors - that would be a far more serious dent than any miracles. As well, it will keep us in a more level playing field: because while I cannot prove what is presented as miracles - I won't ask you to disprove them either.


Its even far more precarious than that: if a certain FX miracle [e.g. immaculate birth] becomes disproven - Islam also falls down with it in a single stroke - because it condoned as revelation what was not. This has no impact on the Hebrew bible - only on 3.2B humans genuinely and sincerely believing what they believe. I say, question miracles only when they do not give us anything more than miracles: this is the differentials between Monotheism and disguised Paganism.


I fully agree with your point here: Christianity is perhaps the easiest religion to knock, because nothing therein is provable or logical - but the belief is not a subsequent target here - this is clearly genuine, and it is a very mysterious thing - perhaps its most definitive platform there is something here, maybe more so because it defies the logic of its own premise and upholds its beliefs - inexplicably too.

I also agree with you about the notion of the Quran not being subjected to the same scrutiny: it begets a rage instead of a debate, citing respect - when this is never shown to others. I found it grotesque funny when a cartoon satire incited so much rage - when the pervasive villifications throughout the islamic world of others is never confornted. I challenge the so-called good muslim majority to confront its peoples teaching the blood libels and Protocols as history - then tell others they will be killed if they murmer a squeek about the Quran. Its called 'RECIPROCITY'.

jon-eli

Its "historical factors"? So if it could be demonstrated that something you think of as an "incidental and subservient" historical datum, is patently untrue... what would be the net outcome of that demonstration? Would you finally admit that the Tanakh is a weak source of historically accurate data?

fatpie42

What do you mean by "the first human"? How would you ever put a marker on a singular individual and say "that person, they're the first human". Humans were formed through adaptation and that required inter-breeding within an entire group, not just a singular person turning up and being 'human'.

Any example of what? I'm not sure what you are asking for. Right now, the breeding of bulldogs is causing them to have breathing problems because bulldogs all over the place are being bred to have ridiculously shaped mouths. Can we point to a singular bulldog and say "that was the first bulldog to have breathing problems due to its mouth shape, so all bulldogs with this problem would have been their offspring"? This seems quite clearly absurd. Unfortunatley, I'm not sure this example is going to convince you since your understanding of the science appears to be so dodgy anyway.

fatpie42

No, you aren't paying attention. Many of the claims in the Bible are supernatural in nature. If we accept that some of these supernatural claims are false, we have thus accepted that the Bible is not entirely accurate.

Imagine that there is an account from a holocaust denier. They give accurate details about a number of features of Nazi Germany, but they miss out or misrepresent vital details regarding the treatment of Jews within the Third Reich. You cannot point to a few accurate points and then claim that the whole account is highly historically reliable.

The problem with your defence of the Tanakh is that many of the points which we all accept are accurate are trivial things like what traditional foods there were in Egypt. The really strong historical claims have such strong mythological elements that it is difficult to know what can be taken at face value. Without corresponding evidence with which to corroborate or compare the information provided, there is very little credence we can give to the story.

Also,
Please don't try to dress the Israelites up as Enlightenment thinkers....