Scripture and History, the same or different?

[polonius]

I am again introducing a topic which might have reader interest. Or not.

The question being addressed is if history and scripture are compatible. Is what scripture tells us happened really historical true?

Any thoughts?

[brianbbs67]

Bluethread posted

As your preferred source of definition shows, history is a story or tale that provides information from the past, whether it actually happened or not.

Response: ABSOLUTELY NOT!

If it happened, it's history.

If it did not happen, it isn't history.

That is true if an impartial person(or being) was the holder of history.

History is written by the Victors and some times the victims. Neither of which is all true.

[polonius]

Bluethread posted

As your preferred source of definition shows, history is a story or tale that provides information from the past, whether it actually happened or not.

Response: ABSOLUTELY NOT!

If it happened, it's history.

If it did not happen, it isn't history.

That is true if an impartial person(or being) was the holder of history.

History is written by the Victors and some times the victims. Neither of which is all true.

RESPONSE: You are confusing the word "history" with the word "true."

One more time. If it happened, it's history. If it did not happen, it isn't history. A simple distinction. Please stick to the basic concept and don't editorialize.

[bluethread]

One more time. If it happened, it's history. If it did not happen, it isn't history. A simple distinction. Please stick to the basic concept and don't editorialize.

The problem is that you are editorializing, when you exclude the nonempirical. Attempts to expain the world and how it works did happen. Therefore, they are history.

[polonius]

One more time. If it happened, it's history. If it did not happen, it isn't history. A simple distinction. Please stick to the basic concept and don't editorialize.

The problem is that you are editorializing, when you exclude the nonempirical. Attempts to expain the world and how it works did happen. Therefore, they are history.

RESPONSE: Not at all.

Please present proof for your claim that I am "editorializing" when I exclude nonempirical data " since such is not founded on provable facts.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

[bluethread]

One more time. If it happened, it's history. If it did not happen, it isn't history. A simple distinction. Please stick to the basic concept and don't editorialize.

The problem is that you are editorializing, when you exclude the nonempirical. Attempts to expain the world and how it works did happen. Therefore, they are history.

RESPONSE: Not at all.

Please present proof for your claim that I am "editorializing" when I exclude nonempirical data " since such is not founded on provable facts.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

Now you are editorializing even more by throwing reason and faith into the mix. If you wished to only discuss a particular kind of history, you should have been clear about that from the beginning. It is interesting that you put editorializing in quotes. You are the one who interjected the term into the discussion to represtent variantions from your view of history. Since that view varies from the definition of Merrium-Webster, which you used as an authority for definitions, would that not fit your accusation of editorializing?

By the way, I do not recall refering to nonempirical data. I merely said that you were excluding the nonempirical. Data is yet another coveat you are adding to what you consider acceptable history. History also includes the development of concepts and principles. These are not empirical but conceptual and some of them have been developed and communicated through legend and mythology. So, for that reason, what you call editorializing is an integral part of a proper study of history. For example, what is the history of Communism, Capitalism, Imperialism, etc? Not the events that one might associate with such philosophies, but the philosphies themselves.

[brianbbs67]

Bluethread posted

As your preferred source of definition shows, history is a story or tale that provides information from the past, whether it actually happened or not.

Response: ABSOLUTELY NOT!

If it happened, it's history.

If it did not happen, it isn't history.

That is true if an impartial person(or being) was the holder of history.

History is written by the Victors and some times the victims. Neither of which is all true.

RESPONSE: You are confusing the word "history" with the word "true."

One more time. If it happened, it's history. If it did not happen, it isn't history. A simple distinction. Please stick to the basic concept and don't editorialize.

No I am not missing or confusing History. Who writes History?

Things that happen are history, but what we read as history is written from the historian's point of view. Not the complete story.

Have you ever heard the saying that there are 3 sides to everything?

His story, Her story, and the true story?

[polonius]

Bluethread posted:

The problem is that you are editorializing, when you exclude the nonempirical. Attempts to expain the world and how it works did happen. Therefore, they are history.

Now Bluethreaad claims:

By the way, I do not recall refering to nonempirical data. I merely said that you were excluding the nonempirical.

.

RESPONSE: Short term memory loss and unwillingness to distinguish between what happened and is history, and what did not happen and thus is not history.

[polonius]

Brian bbs67 posted:

No I am not missing or confusing History. Who writes History?

Things that happen are history, but what we read as history is written from the historian's point of view. Not the complete story.

Have you ever heard the saying that there are 3 sides to everything?

His story, Her story, and the true story?

RESPONSE: You are confusing historical events with the writing of history. If I write a book about the Civil War, it is not proof of the historical event. This is true with a number of sections of the Bible as well.

I only know of 2 sides of history: It happened and is therefore history or it didn’t happen and isn’t history. Simple really, unless someone wants to get into the inerrancy of scripture debate.