Johnny Skeptic

I look forward to reading comments from readers.

Larsguy47

If by "supernatural history" you mean the history in the Bible, you can examine both the same. Basically, when they both agree you can presume non-revisionism. When there is a discprenacy then obviously there was revisionism. You can try to resolve the resivionism or simply note the discrepancy, choosing neither as correct.

However, often secular history references likewise give two different stories and so there is that additional comparison to make with the Biblical chronology. For instance, the Bible's Neo-Babylonian Period is 26 years longer than the surviving secular history. But as far as the history of Cyrus goes, Ktesias claims Cyrus was the son-in-law of Astyages whereas both Xenophon and Herodotus follow a story that he was his grandson. Ktesias is more compatible with the Biblical history.

Also considered "secular" history, of course, is Josephus. Josephus claims in Antiquities that Evil-Merodach ruled for 18 years, whereas the surviving secular history says he only ruled for two years. The 18-year reference in Antiquities is more consistent with the Bible's chronology. So some secular historical references out there that are self-conflicting will sometimes agree with the Bible and the contradictory history will not.

Finally, there is another component of "secular history" as well that is chronologically linked with astronomical events as well dating via radiocarbon14. These references are then used to establish certain fixed dates or absolute dates and that becomes a part of the "secular history", but more than one interpretation of those references can either agree with the Bible or not. Case in point the KTU 1.78 astrotext that David Rohl dates to 1012 BCE to move the Amarna Period closer to the time of David since he finds their writings so incredibly similar. However, there are three other potential date matches for that eclipse event, including the more well-established dating to 1375BCE which is actually close in line with the conventional dating of the Amarna Period. The latter dating is more compatible with Biblical chronology than the former.

Finally, a lot of confusion occurs with various interpretations of the Bible which is then compared to "secular" sources, which likewise are sometimes misinterpreted. Thus both the Bible and a secular source could be completely in agreement with each other but because of errors on both sides, there is considered to be a contradiction. Classic example is the Mesha Stele (Moabite Stone). In it King Mesha claims he rebels against the "king of Israel" in the middle of his rule. In the Bible records this rebellion as well, only it says it is at the time of Ahab's death. Now some think this is a technical contradiction between these references, when, in fact, if one understands that there was a six-year co-rulership between Ahab and Jehoroam, who ruled for 12 years, the Mesha stele and the Bible are in perfect harmony. That is, since Ahab would have died half way through the 12-year rule of Jehoram, it is Jehoram who Mesha is referencing as rebelling half way through his reign. Jehoram must have been dealing direct with Mesha and Ahab had faded into the background more focussed on his personal life at the time. Some not understanding co-rulerships and how to set them up, presume there's a conflict between the secular and Biblical records, but they are in perfect harmony.

So, depends. But generally, you don't presume the Bible as automatically true against any other historical reference, but you don't automatically consider it to be a myth until proven otherwise either. You just check the references out as much as you can and sometimes all you can do is make COMPARISONS, because a lot of things will not add up. For instance the "Delian Problem" shows Plato being consulted in 431 BCE when he wasn't born until 428BCE, obviously a contradiction pointing to revision in the history related to Plato.


LG47

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, I mean the Bible.

It is interesting to note that most of the most important claims that fundamentalist Christians make cannot be adequately researched by any credible historical means. Consider the followings claims:

1 - God is perfect.

2 - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

3 - Jesus was born of a virgin.

4 - Jesus never sinned.

5 - Jesus' shed blood and death remitted the sins of mankind.

6 - Jesus ascended into heaven.

Harry Bosch

{Snipped} I didn't agree with you here. How do you disprove a myth? How would you disprove the myth of Noah's Ark? The myth condradicts all known scientific study. There isn't a shred of evidence for it in the entire world. And yet, many Americans believe in it hook line and sinker.

jbarntt

Small point perhaps, but a myth is by definition not historically factual. It does not need to be disproved. A legend on the other hand is an historical statement that has some basis in fact, but is not entirely true.

Noah's flood could be purely mythical, a myth based on a legend of a catastrophic, but not universal flood, or a myth based on localised floods of perhaps the Euphrates or Nile.

tjakey

It seems to me that "supernatural history" can only be examined using the same tools that one would use to study the Tales of the Brother's Grim, or any other mythology, long faded religion, or story. Any history that inculded the supernatural is, by definition, myth; so there would be no way to study it as if the history was in any sense real.

Larsguy47

Easy, look at the solar system. It's perfection.

True. It's just a reference that can not be proved or disproved.


Ditto.

Ditto.

Ditto. But these are DOCTRINAL issues, more than "historical." One generally doesn't expect secular corroboration of something doctrinal, do they?

Well, he's not there now but I've seen him, materialized so I know there's a spirit realm. The only tangible thing I have for proof of my experience are those photos of clouds, but everybody doesn't see the images in them that I do, I guess.

But these are not SECULAR issues one would expect to find in secular references anyway. So I'm not sure of your point. Lots of things only have one reference without any than a general non-contradiction from the context of the rest of history.

LG47

Harry Bosch

How is the solar system perfect? The vast majority of the system is totally unsuitable for life, as we know it. It's past is a collections of incredibly violent collisions and impacts. Did you notice that the planet between Mars and Jupiter is now a smoldering mass of asteroids? The sun's radiation scorches everything in its path not protected by a magnetic field. Our planet has probably suffered from 7 large natural disasters since it's inception that wiped out most life on the planet at the time. I'm not a scientist, but I can go on and on. The point is that our solar system is far from perfect - it's just the only one that we know.

Johnny Skeptic

What one would expect would be that if Biblical supernatural miracles occurred that were witnessed by hundreds or thousands of people, such as Jesus healing people all over Syria (Matthew 4:24-25 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.), the only surviving records would not always, or almost always be records that were written by people who were followers of the God of the Bible. If there had been writings by skeptic eyewitnesses, those writings would have been quite a prize for followers of the God of the Bible to preserve, but where are they? Some early Christians destroyed competing writings, but they would never have destroyed confirming writings. Of all of the examples I know of, the example that embarrasses fundamentalist Christians the most is the lack of any non-Bibical evidence regarding the ten plagues. If the ten plagues occurred, it would have been the end of Egypt as a major power in the Middle East, and stories would have survived by word of mouth for many centuries, and would have been recorded by historians, and again would have been quite a prize for followers of the God of the Bible to preserve. If the ten plagues occurred, there would have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions of eyewitnesses, including visitors and traders from many countries. It would easily have been the story of the millennia in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world. The most logical conclusion is that Biblical supernatural miracles did not occur.

Larsguy47

Well then look at a beautiful little girl...