The Importance of Fiction

[brownjenkins]

Archeology and history weave in a good bit of fiction in an attempt to connect the dots, and they've never had any problem admitting it, unlike their theological brethren. Those sciences are about discovery and reinvention on a regular basis.

Theology's bread and butter, from the Eddas to the Vedas to the Old Testament, is all about *truth* over fiction. Find a handful of information that a story may have a nugget of actual history within it, and it somehow validates the whole bananna, from nut to rind.

The best you can do is single out a few parts of the biblical texts that may not be fiction.

[inked]

Then be careful of your reading, BJ. CS Lewis once observed that an atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. I'm pretty sure that goes for agnostics too!

By the way, good to see you around again!

[GrayMouser]

Adding my welcome-backs

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The best you can do is single out a few parts of the biblical texts that may not be fiction.

How about the hefty chunk that is not narrative? Prophets, Psalms, Wisdom books, epistles, and all that stuff?

[inked]

The narrative parts are pretty good, too! Specially the parts about the Hittite empire and other non-existent peoples that were derided as spurious until the archeologists' spades uncovered the reality. Check out History dot com and Discovery and all those sorts of places for really dull and uninteresting techno thrillers about that kind of stuff ... ... ...

But what we really need is to for BJ to decide what his definition of non-fiction is!

[Earniel]

It's a bit off topic but... just because Troy was found by going by Homerus' works, doesn't mean the rest of the Iliad is 100% correct. After all, the Troy from the Iliad has not yet been successfully identified with one specific layer of inhabitation found on site.

It's never all or nothing with historical/ritual texts. Facts and fiction are often very mixed and a tough job to find out which is which.

(I'm also pretty sure the Bible is not the only source about the Hittites as they were also mentioned in clay tablets and Egyptian sources.)

[GrayMouser]

Yes, but (and I think this is inked's point) those other sources confirming the existence of the Hittites weren't rediscovered until the 19th Century. Up till that time they had simply been an kingdom mentioned in the Bible, unknown from any other sources.

[inked]

Bingo! GM.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

There are some events corroborated in striking detail by external, non-Hebrew sources. Certainly, this doesn't prove the historicity of the historical books as a whole, but it at least may lead one to think there is more historical accuracy than one might think. At the same time, archaeology and other factors show that some elements do not seem to be historically accurate, so we don't want to go too far in the other direction, either.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

But what we really need is to for BJ to decide what his definition of non-fiction is!

There is no such thing as non-fiction! Every piece of writing in existence is by humans, who have a tendency to eloborate.

[inked]

BJ that is BS and you know it. For instance, mathematics. For another instance, grammar rules. For instance, absolute truth - which you deny while you assert it absolutely does not exist and that all human communication errs by elaboration.

So, what's new?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

BJ that is BS and you know it. For instance, mathematics. For another instance, grammar rules. For instance, absolute truth - which you deny while you assert it absolutely does not exist and that all human communication errs by elaboration.

So, what's new?

Rule sets that humans have created (math, grammar, etc.), are only absolute because we define them as such. Red is "red" because it is what humans have agreed to call objects that reflect that particular frequency of visible light.

Any subjective human creation, humans writing about the past, or even about their own present, as is done in the bible and every other written book, can only be considered what may have happened, not what did happen. Otherwise know as fiction, or historical fiction, in this case.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Rule sets that humans have created (math, grammar, etc.), are only absolute because we define them as such. Red is "red" because it is what humans have agreed to call objects that reflect that particular frequency of visible light.

Of course, the only reason that we signify red things with the word "red" is by arbitrary convention. But that doesn't introduce an element of fiction into such significations. It's not the word that matters, but the concept. Sure, when I say "X is red," it boils down to "X reflects such and such light frequencies;" but you know what? X does reflect such and such light frequencies.

Any subjective human creation, humans writing about the past, or even about their own present, as is done in the bible and every other written book, can only be considered what may have happened, not what did happen. Otherwise know as fiction, or historical fiction, in this case.

I'll pre-empt inked here, and point out the logical conclusion: namely, the claims you have made are at best what might be true. Of course, I'm fine with filing them under the "not-true."

Also, congrats, Elleth!