Why I Hate History

[johnnys4life]

Okay, I love history, really. I love reading, but you know what really gets me? Everything is SO subjective. You get an entirely different take on what happens depending on who you ask, and since you weren't actually THERE, how can you ever be sure what the truth really was? Even letters, books, and personal accounts can be so skewed and taken out of context that you would have to spend a million years rifling through all of it yourself and reading dozens of books to ever make heads or tails of it.

Okay maybe I'm exaggerating, a little.

But I can't get the present right, so how am I going to understand the past? Seems to me like all the world is on trial. I feel like I can't decide anything unless I know the whole truth, but what is it?

Give me the kind of history that has evidence, and I'll be happy. Perhaps I ask too much.

Anyone else have this problem?

 

[Circle_One]

You get an entirely different take on what happens depending on who you ask, and since you weren't actually THERE, how can you ever be sure what the truth really was?

This is actually the same problem I've always had with the bible...

 

[jimbob]

Seems to me like all the world is on trial.

It is

 

[johnnys4life]

This is actually the same problem I've always had with the bible...

Well, that one you really should read in entirety, cause a lot of the mistakes on it can be cleared up just by keeping it in context. And it's such an important book in world-wide culture, there really is no excuse NOT to read it. But you're right, even scholars sometimes can't agree on what it truly says on some issues.

 

[jewscout]

All of history is like that. And that's why i LOVE it! You will always get a different point of view on a subject depending on what you read. Even if you have eye witness accounts it's never the whole truth.

Really it's impossible to piece together a 100% picture of any event in the past...you'll always be missing pieces so you have to interpret what you are seeing, but always be mindful to point out that that is exactly what you are doing, interpreting. Even if you lived it you can't be 100% certain about everything going on in that event at that time.

You have evidence johnnys4life...but you will always have to do some construction w/ it which will involve your own interpretations...sorry that's just the way it is

 

[Circle_One]

Well, that one you really should read in entirety, cause a lot of the mistakes on it can be cleared up just by keeping it in context. And it's such an important book in world-wide culture, there really is no excuse NOT to read it. But you're right, even scholars sometimes can't agree on what it truly says on some issues.

Oh, I have read the bible in its entirety. I may not be Christian, but I have still read it, I like to know why I don't believe in something and understand everything about it so that I can be certain in my beliefs against it.

 

[jimbob]

This is actually the same problem I've always had with the bible...

The bible is authentic for the following:

The first fact is its closeness in time to the events it describes. the books were written quite close in time to when the events took place except for a few, such as genesis and others in the old testament (writting had to be invented before the events could be written

The second is that a many of the books are based on eyewitness accounts. Matthew and John were apostles, present at most of the events they describe in their Gospels. In the begginning of Luke, it specifically states thatthe Gospel is based on accounts of eyewitness, including Mary.

The third is that the authors had nothing to gain from deception. All the authors of the new testament were either martyred or threatened. Surely if their accounts had been false, at least one of them would confess to save their life, but none did.

Finally, none of the accounts were contridicted by anyone at the time. If the books were false, surely someone would have said they were false, but no one did.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Okay, I love history, really. I love reading, but you know what really gets me? Everything is SO subjective. You get an entirely different take on what happens depending on who you ask, and since you weren't actually THERE, how can you ever be sure what the truth really was? Even letters, books, and personal accounts can be so skewed and taken out of context that you would have to spend a million years rifling through all of it yourself and reading dozens of books to ever make heads or tails of it.

Okay maybe I'm exaggerating, a little.

But I can't get the present right, so how am I going to understand the past? Seems to me like all the world is on trial. I feel like I can't decide anything unless I know the whole truth, but what is it?

Give me the kind of history that has evidence, and I'll be happy. Perhaps I ask too much.

Anyone else have this problem?

Why don't you approach history the same way you approach religion and the Bible?

 

[linwood]

The second is that a many of the books are based on eyewitness accounts. Matthew and John were apostles, present at most of the events they describe in their Gospels. In the begginning of Luke, it specifically states thatthe Gospel is based on accounts of eyewitness, including Mary.

Do you have any evidence of this?

The third is that the authors had nothing to gain from deception. All the authors of the new testament were either martyred or threatened. Surely if their accounts had been false, at least one of them would confess to save their life, but none did.

They had alot to gain and the tone of the NT as opposed to the OT is evidence of this.
They were renegades within their own culture, they had a definate agenda.
Do you have any evidence of the deaths of the writers of the NT?

Finally, none of the accounts were contridicted by anyone at the time. If the books were false, surely someone would have said they were false, but no one did.

I would say Judiasm contradicted alot of what happened in the NT

 

[Saw11_2000]

I have never read the bible...even when I was Chrsitian I didn't. I don't even think I have a bible in this house.

 

[cfer]

The bible is authentic for the following:

The first fact is its closeness in time to the events it describes. the books were written quite close in time to when the events took place except for a few, such as genesis and others in the old testament (writting had to be invented before the events could be written

Just because something was written at about the same time that it happened doesn't mean its accurate. Look at all the different news stories that we have in the world today. How many of them are 100% accurate? If they were, why do we have conflicting stories?

The second is that a many of the books are based on eyewitness accounts. Matthew and John were apostles, present at most of the events they describe in their Gospels. In the begginning of Luke, it specifically states thatthe Gospel is based on accounts of eyewitness, including Mary.

That doesn't change the fact that they were still eyewitness accounts and were subject to a certain point of view and personal slant.

The third is that the authors had nothing to gain from deception. All the authors of the new testament were either martyred or threatened. Surely if their accounts had been false, at least one of them would confess to save their life, but none did.

They had a TON to gain! They were trying to spread and grow a new religion! Granted, that doesn't mean that they got tax breaks or anything, but they were trying to get followers.

Finally, none of the accounts were contridicted by anyone at the time. If the books were false, surely someone would have said they were false, but no one did.

Just because there aren't any contradictory accounts available around now does not mean that there were no contradictory accounts. Perhaps the people who knew them to be false were illiterate, maybe things have been lost with time. Just because one thing has been preserved through time does not mean that nothing else existed.

 

[jimbob]

I got all this stuff out of my history book. I was just relating it for a purpose. You don't have to get mad at me, i wasn't trying to make anyone mad, i was just relating some reasons that i know. Please forgive me if i ticked you off, i wasn't trying to.

 

[cfer]

I'm not mad at all. I'm sorry if that's the way it came across. Looking back at my post, I can see how you interpreted it that way. I tend to overuse exclamation points an awful lot in my writing. Sorry.

I'm sorry for the confusion. Just know that I'm not mad at you or anyone else. It would take a lot more than that to make me mad.

I hope there's no hard feelings.

 

[johnnys4life]

Why don't you approach history the same way you approach religion and the Bible?

I would like to, but it's difficult to read ALL the books on any one subject. To understand the Bible, you need only read one book. There is no definitive book on all of history that has absolute credibility - that I know of. So unless something is agreed upon by millions of people, I tend not to believe it.

 

[jewscout]

I would like to, but it's difficult to read ALL the books on any one subject. To understand the Bible, you need only read one book. There is no definitive book on all of history that has absolute credibility - that I know of. So unless something is agreed upon by millions of people, I tend not to believe it.

But there are millions of people who don't agree on the bible either

 

[johnnys4life]

But there are millions of people who don't agree on the bible either

Yeah, but most of them are just reading it wrong. I think if you actually read it for yourself you can pretty much spot when somebody is right or just misusing something for thier own agenda. A lot of times the things we truly can't agree on simply aren't there, or else they aren't that important to begin with.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Yeah, but most of them are just reading it wrong. I think if you actually read it for yourself you can pretty much spot when somebody is right or just misusing something for thier own agenda. A lot of times the things we truly can't agree on simply aren't there, or else they aren't that important to begin with.

The Bible can be interpreted on many different levels. Each person who reads it and that includes theology PhD's reads it from their own perspective. Each perspective can be considered correct, because that is the person's reality at the time.

Also the first 5 books were supposed to be written about 1440 B.C. Since, some of that is about creation and first life, we can't say the Bible was written about the time the events happened. 1Kings was written about 400 years after Jeroboam reigned.

 

[Saw11_2000]

I gotta go pick a bible up and read it, I can't believe I don't have one here.

 

[jewscout]

Yeah, but most of them are just reading it wrong. I think if you actually read it for yourself you can pretty much spot when somebody is right or just misusing something for thier own agenda. A lot of times the things we truly can't agree on simply aren't there, or else they aren't that important to begin with.

hmmm i'm not so sure that's a correct assumption...we use a book caled "Meditations on the Torah" when we study the weekly parashat. Everyweek the sections take commentary from scholars and sages going back centuries and basically have a sort of debate on that weeks parashat. I don't recall at any time all of them agreeing, or even the majority agreeing, on the meaning of a particular verse...and these are the best and brightest.
So which one of them is reading "wrong" and the other "right"?

 

[No*s]

History is like that J4L. There are some things that we can classify as objectively true...but there's a whole lot of guesswork and interpretation. That's part of the reason I like it .