Acta non Verba Wrote:You seem to be arguing against young earthisms. That is an interpretation that fails in many ways (Young earth I mean).
No, not at all. (Even though I am not remotely Christian, taken to its logical conclusion I have argued emphatically for Young Earth - in general I think most vocal Young Earthers simply don't understand the concept.)
What I'm saying is this.
If I am reading you correctly, your initial post seems to essentially be saying that the Bible is an excellent historical source, both because of its amazingly low amount of transcription errors and because it has pointed to places/events that have only recently been acknowledged as fact (eg the Hittite site you mentioned). If the Bible is indeed a good historical source then it can't be dismissed as fiction or pure myth. That all makes perfect sense.
However, there are things in the Bible that very definitely contradict the notion of the Bible's historical accuracy. One is that Adam and Eve were the original humans 6,000 years ago.
If you are saying the Bible is a good historical source, you must surely have a way to understand things in it that seem historically inaccurate. I suggested three options. The first is that, simply, there are some things in the Bible that are not factually accurate. The second is that accepted history/prehistory is not accurate. The third is that some events described in the Bible are metaphorical rather than literal depictions.
I'm interested to know if you lean towards one of those views, or towards something else entirely.
Quote:I lean towards the idea that the, non-god claims (if you will) concerning history are trustworthy beyond must other ancient texts.
Saying you find some historical claims in the Bible more trustworthy than those of other texts is fine, but it doesn't explain how you think about historical claims in the Bible that seem to contradict other firm evidence.
It's also interesting that you separate, roughly, "non-god claims" (accounts of historical events?) from "god claims" (prophecy, law, miracles?). Where is the line drawn? If, for example, you think that claims in the Bible regarding YHWH's will are accurate, do you also think the genealogies are as accurate? Or do you think that some sections of the Bible were more closely inspired by God whereas others were more written by men?