Debate with Paul Myers

Debate with Paul Myers · Paulogia also doesn't get what is reasonable evidence for 1st C events · Holy Koolaid attacked Bible History with HolyKoolaid Tries to Back Up his Attack Against Exodus · Paulogia took on the Tower

Would the Bible be more believable if it had specific dates of every event that happened?
https://www.quora.com/Would-the-Bible-be-more-believable-if-it-had-specific-dates-of-every-event-that-happened/answer/Paul-Myers-60

Paul Myers

IFR pilot, former animator, studying Japanese, anime fan

Answered Nov 24

No. The bible would be more believable if it included sources, testable experiments and repeatable tests that can be verified by the intelligent community at large rather than second-hand accounts of a few peasants who claimed they saw a guy do something fascinating.

And using actual dates would allow us to pit real geology, paleontology, and astronomy against the claims of the bible and better disprove their claims. Using actual dates would put an end to Christianity because then we would have proof that it was all made up.

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tue

“The bible would be more believable if it included sources, testable experiments and repeatable tests that can be verified by the intelligent community at large”

OK, so Livy lacking these for Second Punic War makes Hannibal’s march over the Alps unbelievable?

Paul Myers

Original Author

Tue

How does Hannibal’s march have anything to do with the fables, fairy tales, and unprovable scientific claims of the bible? You lost me there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed

I am applying your criteria.

Livy included no sources for Second Punic War. He did not claim to have conducted experiments on guiding elephants over Alps, and he had no repeatable tests for piercing rock with acid.

Let alone any that can be verified by the [present] community at large.

Ergo, on your criteria against the Bible, we should also consider Second Punic War in Livy as “fables, fairy tales, and unprovable scientific claims”.

Paul Myers

Original Author

Wed

Well I tried to look it up. It actually tells me the name Hannibal does not appear in the bible. Therefore, my statement remains valid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fri

Your reply presupposes you make special rules that apply only to the Bible.

My question is, how does Hannibal fare if you apply the same criteria to Livy as to Biblical authors?

Same, not special.

Paul Myers

Original Author

13h ago

We don’t make special rules for the bible, and even history is dependent on which witness accounts you go by. Obviously JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, but there has been a lot of speculation since then whether that is true or not, and why he was shot.

So of course history can be biased as well. But for Hannibal, I’m sure there were scattered remains from his elephant cavalry that could confirm where his army has marched. This is possible because Hannibal was a real person. Unfortunately for the bible, god and Jesus have no such evidence of their existence..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

“ there were scattered remains from his elephant cavalry that could confirm where his army has marched.”

None found.

We have Livy, we don’t have his sources, we don’t have archaeological evidence.

In other words, we have as much evidence for Hannibal as for Biblical characters in the flesh.

Updates

Since there are more than one, a "Just now" may be followed by a "21 h. ago".

Paul Myers

Original Author

10h ago

Of course they found elephant dung.

Sci News : Scientists Find Hannibal’s Route through Alps
Apr 7, 2016 by Enrico de Lazaro
http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/hannibals-route-alps-03763.html

But yeah, that seems to be all they found, though it doesn’t sound like they looked at the basin where some may have lost their footing and fallen down the basin. Plus, excavating is illegal for the purposes of preserving the site, just in case there are actual finds like swords, armor, human remains and such.

You are probably thinking, “poop is your only proof?”. It’s proof enough that non- indigenous elephants traversed there, and is still far more proof than anything written in the bible.

That being said, I do still hold out skepticism on some of the claims from history as well. We all know Columbus never sailed to the North American continent, the landing of Plymouth rock was bloodier than described, and so forth.

So I agree in part with your claim that we shouldn't take much of what is written in history books at face value because of ethnic, religious or cultural opinion influencing the records.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

It was not even dated, that poop. (Though other poop was, and it had the correct bacterial signature from that time).

Plus, obviously, historians were (justifiedly) not waiting till the poop was found to be sure of Hannibal.

We have much more than that for Christ, like Shroud of Turin and like Holy Cross.

“your claim that we shouldn't take much of what is written in history books at face value because of ethnic, religious or cultural opinion influencing the records”

I never said that.

I do say we depend on cultural opinion for most of our knowledge of the past. Including religious such.

Paul Myers

Original Author

21h ago

And therein lies the bias: cultural opinion. Germany lost world war 2, so very little is mentioned about Hitler and his rise to power over there. Over here, many of the Americans today never even heard of the atrocities of Nanjing because it never concerned us. So yes, history can be biased, and often can be wrong or even omit major facts from its records.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Omitting facts is not the same thing as making facts up.

And “very little is mentioned about Hitler and his rise to power over there” is not true about school systems everywhere.

Do you pretend we should doubt that Hitler came to power in 1933 or that he was at least reported dead by suicide in the bunker 1945?

With World War II, we certainly have lots more records around now, than we have for things that happened 2000 years ago … but this is not a valid reason to make it into a myth if 2000 years from now all that survives of World War II records is Patrick Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War.

Note it is from 2008, so 63 years posterior to 1945.

Paul Myers

Original Author

16h ago

Of course not. We need to learn about history so that we don’t make the same mistakes. But we are doomed to repeat them if many of the entries are glorified or misrepresented or outright omitted.

But when it comes to the bible, everything was outright fabricated and obviously misrepresented with their lack of knowledge or scientific understanding. So of course it still stands to reason that no one should take any serious lessons from the bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“everything was outright fabricated”

Your problem is, your argument would make Livy’s account of Hannibal a likely fabrication, at least before recent finds of elephant dung.

“and obviously misrepresented”

How do you misrepresent a fabricated fact?

“with their lack of knowledge”

How can anyone be ignorant of the events happening then and there?

“or scientific understanding”

Since when is scientific understanding a prerequisite for accurate grasp and accurate transmission of events?

“Of course not. We need to learn about history …”

Not the point : my point is about credibility with scanty surviving evidence after long lapses of time.

Would in 2000 years, with Pat Buchanan as only author surviving, World War II still remain a credible event?

Do you even realise that cultural opinion is our main clue to what has happened?

“so that we don’t make the same mistakes”

Totally beside the point. The analysis a historian or history teacher gives abut who made what mistake and what one should have done instead definitely more subjective than what happened and good novels could take the place, if it were just a matter of learning lessons about morals and statecraft.

The question is about how and why history is credible knowledge and “because we know science” is not the answer.

Paul Myers

Original Author

22h ago

No, science is always the answer, and the bible is never the answer. That’s kind of the whole point of why you cannot trust what is written in the bible. So now our debate has gone full circle.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

The debate may have gone so, but I haven’t proven in a circle, nor explained in a circle.

And once again you have made an argument which cannot be consistently applied without debunking much of what no historian would doubt.

Replace Bible, which is a kind of cultural opinion, with the more general term “science is always the answer, and cultural opinion is never the answer” - and all history falls apart, because it is built on cultural opinion and not on science.

Accepting Hannibal going over the Alps with Elephants is ultimately based on considering with the normal and traditional cultural opinion, that Livy was writing history and not the kind of fictional history that is staple of Silmarillion or Appendices to Lord of the Rings.

Not accepting Aragorn as having ruled over Gondor and reunited Arnor is ultimately based on the cultural opinion that Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings several thousand years after the events were set and did so for fun and edification and emotion, but definitely not for the accurate recounting of true facts. And not directly based on any older accounts.

You might add your world view doesn’t allow you to accept a magic ring or a fallen angelic being who is incarnate and looses his last trace of flesh when the ring is destroyed, but for one thing, that need not be taken as all that necessary for the bulk of the story and for another, some do not share your world view. It is not accepted as universal key to what cannot be history - except half and half by modern historians who might change their methodology for the better if given a chance to survive.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

To summarise previous : “science is the answer” may be your motivation for not trusting the Bible, but it is definitely not the motivation for trusting any non-Biblical history - including such as science cannot do without.

Paul Myers

Original Author

1h ago

That’s what you said earlier: with the absence of actual evidence, we need to treat all history as if it may be as fictional as what the bible says.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Correction on what I actually said:

“with the absence of actual evidence”

With the actual evidence being sources centuries later.

“we need to treat all history as if it may be as fictional as what the bible says.”

We need to treat the Bible as a source on par with accepted historic sources, until disproven by better sources.

Paul Myers

Original Author

Thu

Okay, I can agree with that statement. Especially if our only evidence is piles of elephant dung. Your point is well taken.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

No, our only evidence is NOT elephant dung. It is only our only evidence of YOUR “canonic” types.

Our main evidence is cultural opinion traceable closer back to events than any contrary (if such exists).

Precisely as my view Tolkien is not history is based on the cultural opinion as far as I know going back to while LotR was written. And my view Gospels are history is based on Papias being older than Voltaire.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“And using actual dates would allow us to pit real geology, paleontology, and astronomy against the claims of the bible and better disprove their claims. Using actual dates would put an end to Christianity because then we would have proof that it was all made up.”

This is a new thread, would you mind giving examples?

Feel free to use the dates I gave in my answer.

Own answer

Would the Bible be more believable if it had specific dates of every event that happened?
https://www.quora.com/Would-the-Bible-be-more-believable-if-it-had-specific-dates-of-every-event-that-happened/answers/182821114

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Tue

Secondary literature to the Bible has figured out the dates, with some discrepancy between Historia scholastica (which had its dates included in Roman Martyrology) and George Syncellus.

For Historia Scholastica, you get Christ born 5199 after Creation, 2957 after Flood, 2015 after birth of Abraham, 1510 after Exodus, 1032 after anointing of King David (probably should be : 1082 after anointing of King David and 1032 after completion of King Solomon’s Temple).