Freethought & Rationalism Archive

IamJoseph · 06-03-2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Sherlock Holmes was surrounded by know historical artifcats and was reputed to perform fearts of mental analysis far beyond mortal humans.

Superman was surrounded by known historical atrifacts ans winesses in the comic books attest to his being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

The Wizard Of Oz conatins known historical references.

Homer's adventures have been linked to archeological sites.

None of those figures made a first time record of anything. Unlike the Hebrew. :wave:

Quote:

The Koran considers Mohammed the last in the line of the prophets starting with Abraham and including JC.

But he never stepped foot in Jerusalem, and there were no Arabs around in Abraham's time. The Hebrew is historical - its not based on 'belief'.

Johnny Skeptic · 06-03-2009, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

None of those figures made a first time record of anything. Unlike the Hebrew.

Many cultures made up many names for the first time. So what?
You have already tried that argument at the Evolution/Creation Fourm, and it didn't work.

Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The world's oldest known alphabet was developed in central Egypt around 2000 BC from a hieroglyphic prototype, and over the next 500 years spread to Canaan and eventually to the rest of the world.

Obviously, Egyptians made up names for the first time before Hebrews did.

Toto · 06-03-2009, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I doubt that even 1 serious scholar has elevated Josephus to inerrant status in the way you claim "numerous" scholars have done.

I can give you 10 of these - would it suffice?

Quote:

# Excellent Historian
It should be stressed that Josephus is, according to ancient criteria, an excellent historian. Authors like Polybius of Megalopolis and Lucian have published treatises on the writing of history, and Josephus lives up to the standards they set. He knows the country he is describing, he has experience as commander of an army, and he understands the issues of the war. Moreover, he interviewed representatives of both sides. This is more than can be said about his younger contemporary Tacitus, who is usually regarded as a greater historian.

In the first place, you need to identify the historian, and quote what is actually written.

You seem to have found that quote here - "article by Jona Lendering ©"

Notice that the author qualifies Josephus as excellent "according to ancient criteria." This is hardly the same thing as "inerrant" by either ancient or modern critieria.

And you have quote mined even that: the paragraph you quote is followed by:

Quote:

As we will see below, modern scholars have criticized Josephus, though.

So far you have produced no reputable historians who think that Josephus is inerrant.

Toto · 06-04-2009, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

.... My understanding is that nothing in the Hebrew bible has ever been disproven, and more than 70% has already been proven. ...

I think your understanding is wrong. What are you talking about? Everything? the histories??

spamandham · 06-04-2009, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I doubt that even 1 serious scholar has elevated Josephus to inerrant status in the way you claim "numerous" scholars have done.

I can give you 10 of these - would it suffice?

Yes, that would help quite a bit. Please name them and cite where they say that "everything he said was accurate. ".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.