History is fake.

Mar 2017
793
Colorado
#31
When we say, cite stories from a religious book and then exclaim,,' ah thats historical bec the bible mentions it...'

What's possible is that,, 'it could hae been written after the fact, meaning..,the assyrians already came and conquered palestine when it was then written down in bible stories..'' OR.., the Ipuwer papyrus was the template for the Exodus stories.

or,, Sargon's birth story with that of Moses.

:)
You lost me.

History is always written "after the fact". The Bible is a book that has SOME history in it. It definitely borrows/steals from other traditions ... like many other books.

It's not clear what you're going for here.
 
Sep 2018
17
erewhon
#33
You lost me.

History is always written "after the fact". The Bible is a book that has SOME history in it. It definitely borrows/steals from other traditions ... like many other books.

It's not clear what you're going for here.
My point is that..., 'a religious book is not a viable historical source as its purpose is to try to connect its prophetic declarations wd historical events ..'

The book of daniel, for one, claims to be prophetic abt foreigners conquering palestine, yet it was actually written 'after the events' occurred centuries later.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,829
Sydney
#34
.
that true but it does have historical facts mentioned , just not in the sequential order

timeline are some of the most vexing problem in establishing history ,

even to this day there is some leeway including with the maddeningly flexible carbon dating of sites
 
May 2011
13,452
Navan, Ireland
#35
.......................Any interpretation is trash .. .. historical manipulation.

History are only facts, facts and facts.
Sorry history is very much about interpretation and there are very few facts.

For instance before Waterloo Napoleon stated

"Wellington is a bad general, the English are bad troops and we’ll settle this matter by lunchtime."


Obviously he was over confident and underestimated his opponent .

Or did he? was he just saying this to bolster the confidence of his men?
Its a fact he said it but what he meant by it is open to interpretation.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,083
Portugal
#36
My point is that..., 'a religious book is not a viable historical source as its purpose is to try to connect its prophetic declarations wd historical events ..'

The book of daniel, for one, claims to be prophetic abt foreigners conquering palestine, yet it was actually written 'after the events' occurred centuries later.
While expressing your idea about a religious book you seem to have lost Dio’s point, and historians point, that a religious book is a history source, not necessarily because all the stories and tales mentioned there are true but because it expresses the way their writers view their own society, their laws, their costumes, their cultural production. And in a much lesser degree the tales mentioned there. But, like any other sources, the religious books must be analysed and criticized. That is an essential part of the work of any historian and it also should be learned by people that just like history.

Your second paragraph led me to think that you need to study a bit more about the historical methods currently used before you dive in any complex historical source, as for instance a religious book.
 
Sep 2018
17
erewhon
#37
While expressing your idea about a religious book you seem to have lost Dio’s point, and historians point, that a religious book is a history source, not necessarily because all the stories and tales mentioned there are true but because it expresses the way their writers view their own society, their laws, their costumes, their cultural production. And in a much lesser degree the tales mentioned there. But, like any other sources, the religious books must be analysed and criticized. That is an essential part of the work of any historian and it also should be learned by people that just like history.

Your second paragraph led me to think that you need to study a bit more about the historical methods currently used before you dive in any complex historical source, as for instance a religious book.
Too much '' gobbledygook..',, imo.

bottomline is..., 'religious books are not viable historical source or records.., as its timeline itself is its main problem...''

Complex historical source as in religious book translates to being 'problematic and unreliable..'

plain and simple.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,829
Sydney
#38
.
Too often history is a set of punctual facts which have to be connected into a mental picture

where it get tricky is thinking like an Aztec or a Spartan , their mindscape was largely different
 

Similar History Discussions