« Glenn Beck on the DSS. | Main

October 25, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cd0c69e2013488789678970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is the Bible Historical? It Depends.:

Comments

Meshugina

Nice Post. I think Freyne is trying to put a nice little bow on a difficulty within archaeology of the Near East which has just as many non-believers in it, as there are believers. Believers are theological people, by definition; whether they are schooled in the higher debates of it or not. To imply that the theology of the transmitter of the history framed the actuality of it, erodes the platform of its inerrancy.

As for the framing and reinterpretation, it is largely a western mindset which believes the redaction of history is a probability within written or oral accounts. The post modern perspective would encourage the telephone game situation with retelling of history.

It seems reasonable to believe that people mutate the truth to suit their purpose, but the Jews are notoriously stodgy about righteousness through historical validation. It is an insult to the Patriarchs to change the historical account and therefore not an option. As for the accounts of change in the Messianic period texts, First Century documents exist which validate modern texts we used today.

Freynes semantic dissections of reality and fluidity are consistently superfluous, as in his battle of conceptual resurrection vs. human resuscitation. As one of my professors used to say, he likes to deny the meat for the sake of the gravy...

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Connect

Facebook Twitter

Connections

October 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31