Now, I know that it's annoying when someone says that something is true because their bible says so, but I would just like to point out that religious texts are not totally invalid historical references. Some people around here seem to think that, because it is the holy text of the religion being discussed, it is a completely unreliable source of information. While I stress using sources such as the bible rarely and with great care, I do have to point out that any and all sources of sketchy historical information are usually biased, and at least somewhat untrustworthy.
Singling out the bible as being useless in a historical debate (while many times I agree) only shows your own inherent hostility towards the text, and thus that your perspective is also intensely biased.
In order that I not sound like I'm just criticizing, I will give non-believers some advice when dealing with this; simply, ask for the specific chapter and verse, make sure you have a bible on hand or some other way of gaining access to your own copy, and check out the verse yourself within the appropriate context, meaning that you shouldn't just dismiss it because it is the bible. Try and offer an alternative interpretation of not just that specific verse, but the story being told as a whole, and point out (if appropriate) how this does not mesh with current historical understanding by citing the appropriate (legitimate, professional, and as close to unbiased) secular sources, namely archaeological journals, books written by well respected and well known historians, etc. Remember, if you're an atheist, citing well known atheist websites or authors is just as ridiculous as a theist citing only the bible or other christian texts as a source.
For the believers, it's simple; if you are going to make a genuine historical claim, using the bible by itself is a meaningless gesture. In order for anyone to take you seriously you need to include secular, non-theist, professional, recognized sources in your claim. As simple as that. I'm sick of the back and forth, so in order to avoid this kind of useless banter, I suggest both side use these guidelines. If you think it's a waste of time, or I don't know what I'm talking about, fine. Ignore this thread.
Singling out the bible as being useless in a historical debate (while many times I agree) only shows your own inherent hostility towards the text, and thus that your perspective is also intensely biased.
In order that I not sound like I'm just criticizing, I will give non-believers some advice when dealing with this; simply, ask for the specific chapter and verse, make sure you have a bible on hand or some other way of gaining access to your own copy, and check out the verse yourself within the appropriate context, meaning that you shouldn't just dismiss it because it is the bible. Try and offer an alternative interpretation of not just that specific verse, but the story being told as a whole, and point out (if appropriate) how this does not mesh with current historical understanding by citing the appropriate (legitimate, professional, and as close to unbiased) secular sources, namely archaeological journals, books written by well respected and well known historians, etc. Remember, if you're an atheist, citing well known atheist websites or authors is just as ridiculous as a theist citing only the bible or other christian texts as a source.
For the believers, it's simple; if you are going to make a genuine historical claim, using the bible by itself is a meaningless gesture. In order for anyone to take you seriously you need to include secular, non-theist, professional, recognized sources in your claim. As simple as that. I'm sick of the back and forth, so in order to avoid this kind of useless banter, I suggest both side use these guidelines. If you think it's a waste of time, or I don't know what I'm talking about, fine. Ignore this thread.
