jon-eli

The point he was making, is that a moderator felt you had gone so far off-topic, and that your claims were so unsubstantiated, that he split your posts off into a separate thread. There is clearly a communication barrier between yourself and every sane person on the planet, so you need to try harder not to make assumptions. Breath deeply, and then see if you can think of a better way to interpret what's being said to you.

You make a good point. You might want to elaborate on this very solid point of yours, since you make so very few of them.

That's not a word.

And for this reason, you must make a clear statement of your methodology. You've yet to do so.

Scholars, of all stripes, often do the exact opposite of what you're saying, and routinely prove that the method is useless. Trimming ahistorical data from a text, and then assuming that what remains must be regarded as potentially historical, is silly. Any of that "potentially historical" data is far too bound-up within the context of the narrative to be saftley removed from that context. For this reason, any text that describes blatantly ahistorical material, must be considered by-and-large an ahistorical document.

Do you think such a thing can be proved? I don't. Any evidence that contradicts statements in the Hebrew bible, is irrelevant because of the way you've framed the challenge. "Historically based" is what you're demanding evidence against. But any contradictions can be explained away by appealing to progressively looser historical groundings. Such arguments spiral very quickly, and if you can't see that, then you need to think harder.

The proof or disproof of miracles is not within the purvue of historians, so you're point is moot.

jon-eli

Please don't lecture on "correct grammatical comprehension." Your own sentence is grammatically broken. What does it mean, please?

I'll make it easy:
(a) Correct grammatical comprehension requires THAT the most correct route BE applied.
(b) Correct grammatical comprehension requires the most correct route TO BE applied.

Pick one.

And there is something still very wrong, isn't there? How does one "apply" a route? Let's try: "Correct grammatical comprehension requires that the most correct route be TAKEN."

But this is still wrong. How does the first part of the sentence logically connect to the second part? And in what way are you saying anything different from: "In order to comprehend the grammar correctly, one must comprehend the grammar correctly"? Can you see yet, that what you're trying to say can be said much more simply? Or that it's self-evident? Why do you inflate the word-count when it's unnecessary? All you're doing is forcing complex sentence structure onto yourself, even though you seem unable to bare the burden of such. All you needed to say was: "You're not understanding the grammar correctly." ... Assuming that that's what you meant, though it's clearly impossible to know for sure.

I honestly think that you might have something valuable to say. I just have no idea what it is, since you obfuscate everything with flights of poetic fancy and disconnected chains of thought.

IamJoseph

IMO you are wrong. The additions you made are superfluous; there is no alternative reading w/o those additions. Think about it.


This is not a grammar thread, but I would apply a route exactly how i would apply commonsense. As an action. I would apply the best route from point A to B; it means I would study all routes and decide on the best I think there is. That is also how grammar works.

I found the grammar in the hebrew bible impeccable and transcendent of any writings in existence: it takes the most direct and shortest routes, uses the most appropriate synonyms and adjectives, and is able to describe awkward premises like beastiality and incest in the least offensive and the most majestic modes possible. I learnt much from these writings. Try to improve on:

'Man and woman created he them'.
'
Let the earth put forth grass - herb yielding seed - and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind - wherein is the seed thereof - upon the earth'

Or try to give a better opening symbolism, one applying to multiple applications, such as:

'Let there be Light'.

How would you describe to ancient humanity the factor of sub-atomic realms and that a human embodies all aspects of the earth - and make them applicable to all generations of humanity? How about:

"FROM THE DUST OF THE EARTH"?

jon-eli

If by "superfluous" you mean "necessary for correct grammatical comprehension," then I agree.

I shouldn't have to think about it. It should be written intuitively enough that I can parse it from beginning to end without saying, "Wha--??"

I agree it's not a grammar thread, and this will be the last post in which I speak off-topic. But I'm trying to wring some sense out of you, since I think it would benefit the discussion for you to speak coherently. You seem to be decidedly unfamiliar with English idiom. You use words that, while sometimes accurate, disrupt the flow of your sentences and make them difficult to understand. Does that make sense to you? Speak simply please, so that people might better comprehend you.

I agree, it's beautiful. The KJV is a work of art. But that has nothing to do with its grammar, and it's entirely a subjective point-of-view. You insist on peddling subjective judgments as historical fact, and I'm not sure why you can't see the distinction.

Now to return to the topic of this thread, could you please explain your methodology? What are your criteria for determining the truth or non-truth of events? I'm honestly curious.

IamJoseph

Not so.




In the above example, 'THAT' is superflouos and not encumbent. There is no alternative undertstanding from the way I put it. The 'THAT' is implicit and your correction is incorrect. 'THAT' would only be requred here where there is a possibility of confusion or mis-application. Otherwse, one has to apply the shortest possible correct mode.


Everything is subjective first, and then it can apply objectively. Art can be subjective, but what is said in the hebrew bible is definitely not limited by that treshold: it addresses humanity and is making constants. I know of no other more universal premises.

I prefer truthfulness as transcendent of truth. The latter is subjective and elusive, and the former is the best path to getting closer to the later. Truth will attain its own level from what is put before it. None know what truth per se is - if we confront truth we would become instantly negated and destroyed. Truth cannot allow any slack or play, it cannot be added to or subtracted from, and anything we offer it makes it less than what it was.

I appreciate the Hebrew bible's constant, NO MAN SHALL KNOW ME AND LIVE, and I always try to recall this when someone says their way and belief is the best - it applies to all life, even the greatest prophets and messiahs ['AND MOSES COULD NOT LOOK UPON THE LORD']. Those who claim to know are either lieing or in great error. When knowing happens, it will not be the privy of the selected few. Till then:

An honest disagreement is greater than a dishonest agreement.

jon-eli

Crap. You're actually right about that. Sorry.

But you'll notice I made another correction to the sentence, and I don't think the second correction was superfluous.

Yes, but in the Hebrew bible, what is truthful in a historical sense? I accept that things can represent allegorical truths without actually presenting historical facts; but that's not what any of this discussion is about. When you read the Hebrew scriptures, what is your method of determining their historical accuracy? You have mentioned Tel Dan. I assume you did so in order to support the historical fidelity of the stories told in the scriptures. But even if David was an historical figure, and even if we have echoes of other elements of the scriptures, how does this demonstrate their accuracy as historical documents? What is your method for determining this? There may very well be a basis in reality, but how are you able to equate "historical basis" with "an accurate transcription of people and events"? Couldn't we just reject nearly all of the scriptural stories as embellishments, with only a minor basis in reality?

IamJoseph

I found that the Hebrew bible does not embelish its descriptions with words like magnificient, great, handsome, etc. It downplays everything and makes focused points as with a numerical list, as if as a reference for future generations - mostly in the past tense. David's character are not given, only some events and deeds, both good and bad - meaning it appears a non-alligned observation. And the events described are historical, with dates, names, wars and terrains - these are historically verifiable, which means it is not based on 'belief'. I would not have regard for it if it was a candy coated book which does not give insight to the ancient world, and its philosophies were bad and wrong.

I've read a lot, but found nothing much as a comparison. I think most of the world targets this scripture because they secretly percieve is it true and correct, but in discordance of what they would like to hear. I always get surprised that anti-creationists find more energy to target the Hebrew bible than other scriptures; clearly it should be the other way around - at least the Hebrew bible alligns with some 75% of science, math and history, and where it does not - its on an equal footing and not dislodged. Its the Hebrew bible which makes a scientist sweat - this is where premises like Evolution, entropy, universe & life origins, historical documenting, judiciary, moral/ethical concepts, medicine, even democrasy comes from.

spamandham

Please provide a definition of 'proven' that you will stick by without changing even after we meet it, and also explain what 'non-historical' means.

jon-eli

What I mean by "embellishments," is that they may have taken a factual "core" and weaved fictional stories around that core. How do we separate the core form the embellishments?

When you say "numerical list," are you referring to the genealogies? Or are there scads other lists hidden away in Leviticus (which I'll confess I've never read)? Your term is a tad confusing for me. But in any case, do you find it plausible that these lists could have had liturgical purposes? The genealogies likely served to connect one tribe to another, whenever this was deemed desirable, and therefore they are probably one-part factual, one-part complete fabrication. Is this something you reject?

Or maybe it shows that the writer was not interested in conveying David's character? Maybe the story had an allegorical purpose, and David was only there to demonstrate the moral of the story?

Surely not all the events are described with listed dates? You are thinking of a few facets of the stories that can be verified or which show signs of historicity... that doesn't mean the whole story is factual, just because some parts of it might be.

Hah! This is what everyone says about everyone else. Dear me. Lamentable, isn't it?

It shouldn't be a surprise that they target the most common holy-book in world.

That's patently untrue. But luckily it's off-topic as well, so I'll just pass here.

Are you suggesting that these concepts originated in the Hebrew scriptures?

fatpie42

If the story is changed to only a few animals and for much less time than stated and only the local area becoming flooded, we can hardly refer to it as an accurate reporting of history, can we?