jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (18 posts)

Why should a book that throws in random acts of magic be considered "Historicall

  1. getitrite profile image80
    getitriteposted 3 years ago

    Why should a book that throws in random acts of magic be considered "Historically Accurate" ??

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/11832320_f260.jpg

  2. profile image0
    christiananrkistposted 3 years ago

    you could always do research and see which area's correlate with history, which ones dont, and which ones are unknown as of yet. then make your decision based on that information.

    1. Link10103 profile image76
      Link10103posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I dont disagree with that, but when people claim the magical parts are true but then say stuff like Harry Potter is fiction...you kind of have to scratch your head a bit.

    2. profile image0
      christiananrkistposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      when you research harry potter though, none of it correlates with history or archaeology. . also no one has put their life on the line for hogwarts. that alone doesnt make something true, but it makes it at least worth questioning

    3. M. T. Dremer profile image96
      M. T. Dremerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Parts of Harry Potter do correlate with history. Frequently they make mention of real places, like London, France and the United States. And I believe J. K. went on record saying it took place in the 1990s.

    4. Link10103 profile image76
      Link10103posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I've read dozens of fiction books that took place in real places and were spin offs of historical events. I never questioned whether the fiction aspect was true or not because it's very clearly fiction...

    5. profile image0
      christiananrkistposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      in the case of "magic" in the bible, they are truth claims. saying its very clearly fiction without questioning is the same as saying clearly god did it without questioning. more in depth research may be required to find the truth. Dont you think?

    6. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Christian, what kind of research do I need to do to determine whether magic is real or not?  I think James Randi pretty much covered that, when he offered 1 million to anyone who could prove their claims of magic. No one has claimed the money.

    7. profile image0
      christiananrkistposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      getitrite: the problem with Randi's offer is he wants us to prove something only God can do. the research we do is checking sources outside the bible that correlate with what people said they saw and died or were imprisoned for and such things

    8. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Christian, At anytime in your research did you uncover any evidence that prove the laws of nature can be violated?  I'm not talking about hearsay.  Is it also logical to research whether Excalibur was the magic sword of King Arthur?  Merlin?

    9. profile image0
      christiananrkistposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      getitrite: let me just ask , how do you suppose Jesus would prove to people he was God? By simply stating it, or by doing the impossible? i think as a truly open minded person you would investigate everything. much science was laughed at early in Hx

    10. JMcFarland profile image85
      JMcFarlandposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Christian - Christianity is not the only religion or philosophy in the world that people have been willing to die for.   Are you saying that all of them are true because people were willing to die for them?   They're conflicting claims.

    11. profile image0
      christiananrkistposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      JM: im saying it makes worth looking into. you combined the testimony with what people did and why, and evidence, then come to a conclusion from that 1 claim. there's not need to dismiss it because other claims have 1 thing in common with it.

    12. getitrite profile image80
      getitriteposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Christian, First Jesus would need to prove that there is a God...and that this God is the REAL God...out of the many gods that have been worshiped by humans. And that Gods produce offspring.
      "Doing the impossible"?  Are we back to magic again?

    13. profile image0
      christiananrkistposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      he didnt need to prove God or which one in that culture. remember his audience was primarily the Jews. But, yes, God must first be proven or accepted. which is another debate.  you never answered how you think  Jesus would prove divinity?

  3. Hendrika profile image82
    Hendrikaposted 3 years ago

    Well, with other books it may be a problem, but anything in the Bible can be accepted as Historical

    1. Link10103 profile image76
      Link10103posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      One has to wonder why that is, especially since there are very little if any other sources to cross reference its validity.

  4. lone77star profile image83
    lone77starposted 3 years ago

    Getitrite, you load your question with biases. How are any of the acts in the Bible random? And were you including other books, too?

    Just because you haven't seen miracles makes decidedly NOT an expert. I've seen dozens -- events that science could never explain, because they bend or break the laws of physical reality. How are such things possible? If you've ever had any experience as a software engineer, then think of the programming and the programmer. If you've ever been a professional artist, then think of the canvas and the artist. I've been both.

    But historical accuracy is a strange concept when you talk of an entire book filled with varying stories. The Bhagavad-Gita is filled with stories, some of which are labeled "Truth," and some "Fable." To characterize the entire book as one or the other would be false, because it is a mix of fact and analogy -- concrete substance and metaphor.

    The Bible is no different. In fact, the first 5 books of the Bible were written in CODE by Kabbalists. Almost none of it is "historically accurate," because it was code, called the "Language of Branches." It's words refer to relationships in the spiritual world -- not the physical.

    For those who are interested and ready, the following short video can help explain some of those relationships.

    http://perceivingreality.com

 
working