Archaeology of the New Testament

ZenMode said:
Nope. My answer is literally in the exact verse that I pasted. You are intentionally lying to yourself.

On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord.
Click to expand...
You are correct. @Melchizedek is using a heretical version of the Bible. You are using KJV, which is the correct version.
 
IBDaMann said:
You are correct. @Melchizedek is using a heretical version of the Bible. You are using KJV, which is the correct version.
Click to expand...
This claim isn’t a factual statement—it’s a religious opinion presented as fact.

1) “The KJV is the correct version”​

❌ Not a factual claim (no objective standard)​

There is no universally agreed “correct” Bible translation.

The King James Version is:

  • One of the most influential English translations
  • Valued for its literary style and historical importance
But scholars note:

  • It is based on manuscripts available in the early 1600s
  • Since then, older and more numerous manuscripts have been discovered
  • Modern translations often use a broader and earlier manuscript base
Examples of widely used modern translations include:

  • New International Version
  • English Standard Version
  • New Revised Standard Version
None are objectively “the” correct version—they reflect different translation philosophies (literal vs. thought-for-thought, etc.).

2) “Other versions are heretical”​

❌ Misuse of the term “heresy”​

“Heresy” refers to doctrinal deviation within a religious tradition, not to translation differences.

Most mainstream Bible translations:

  • Are produced by teams of scholars
  • Are based on recognized ancient manuscripts
  • Differ mainly in wording and interpretation, not core doctrine
Calling another translation “heretical” is:

  • A theological judgment, not a verifiable fact

3) What scholars actually agree on​

Across Christian traditions and academic Biblical studies:

  • No single translation is considered perfect
  • All translations involve interpretive choices
  • Comparing multiple translations is often encouraged

4) Bottom line​

  • ❌ “KJV is the correct version” → opinion, not fact
  • ❌ “Other versions are heretical” → theological claim, not evidence-based
  • ✔️ Reality: There are many valid translations, each with strengths and limitations
 
Grim Reaper said:
This comment mixes a kernel of truth about the discipline of history with several incorrect or misleading claims
Click to expand...
Nope. You shouldn't trust hallucinating AI assistants.

Grim Reaper said:
1) “History is not about events, it is about documentation”
Click to expand...
History is only about documentation. It can be documentation of events, documentation of people, documentation of pets, documentation of UFOs, of whatever.

Grim Reaper said:

2) “Everything prior to documentation is prehistoric”​

⚠️ Oversimplified / partly misleading​

Click to expand...
Nope. You will lose every time you try to fight definitions.

Grim Reaper said:
3) “History is an exact parallel to intelligence gathering”
Click to expand...
It's a perfect analogy.

Grim Reaper said:
4) “When someone says ‘Jesus was not a historical figure,’ it just means there’s insufficient documentation”
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Grim Reaper said:
The majority of historians (including many non-religious scholars) agree he likely existed
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. History is not determined by consensus; it is determined by documented first hand accounts. Popularity of an account is what is determined by consensus.

Grim Reaper said:
5) “History requires strict documentation standards”

⚠️ Partly true but overstated​

Click to expand...
History is a rigorous standard. Period.

Grim Reaper said:
6) “Beliefs without documents are just faith”

⚠️ Philosophical opinion, not a factual claim​

Click to expand...
You missed a word. Religious beliefs are just faith. No documentation is even necessary.

4f6f5b7f487a501e431d3501bf526fdd.jpg
 
ZenMode said:
Nope. My answer is literally in the exact verse that I pasted. You are intentionally lying to yourself.

On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the Lord.
Click to expand...
This is what happens when you cherry pick verses,instead of reading the whole chapter" "The Destroyer"NASB_Exodus_12-23.jpg
 
IBDaMann said:
Nope. You shouldn't trust hallucinating AI assistants.


History is only about documentation. It can be documentation of events, documentation of people, documentation of pets, documentation of UFOs, of whatever.


Nope. You will lose every time you try to fight definitions.


It's a perfect analogy.


Exactly.


Irrelevant. History is not determined by consensus; it is determined by documented first hand accounts. Popularity of an account is what is determined by consensus.


History is a rigorous standard. Period.


You missed a word. Religious beliefs are just faith. No documentation is even necessary.
Click to expand...


Most of what’s asserted here is not how historians actually define or practice history. There’s a consistent pattern of over-narrow definitions and false absolutes.

1) “History is only about documentation”​

❌ Incorrect​

In the field of History, history is:

  • the study and interpretation of the past,
  • using many kinds of evidence, not just written documents.
Historians routinely rely on:

  • archaeology (artifacts, buildings, graves)
  • oral traditions
  • inscriptions
  • environmental and scientific data
Written documentation is important, but it is not the only basis of history.

2) “You will lose every time you try to fight definitions”​

❌ Misleading framing​

Definitions aren’t settled by assertion—they’re determined by actual usage in scholarship and reference works.

Standard definitions (e.g., in encyclopedias and academic texts) describe history as:

  • both past events and
  • the discipline that studies them
So the claim is trying to impose a personal definition, not reflect accepted usage.

3) “History is determined by documented firsthand accounts”​

❌ Incorrect​

If this were true, large parts of the past would be unknowable.

In reality:

  • Firsthand accounts are often biased, incomplete, or wrong
  • Historians cross-check multiple sources
  • Secondary and material evidence can be just as important
Example:

  • Much of ancient history relies on later sources plus archaeology, not just eyewitness documents
So history is determined by evaluation of all available evidence, not just firsthand records.

4) “History is not determined by consensus”​

⚠️ Partly true but misleading​

  • It’s true that facts aren’t decided by popularity
  • But in practice, scholarly consensus matters because it reflects:
    • accumulated evidence
    • peer review
    • critical debate
Consensus in fields like Historiography is:

  • not voting or popularity
  • but convergence of evidence-based conclusions

5) “It’s a perfect analogy (to intelligence gathering)”​

❌ Not accurate​

The comparison breaks down because:

  • Intelligence work is often secret, immediate, and action-oriented
  • History is open, revisable, and interpretive
They share some tools (evaluating sources), but they are not equivalent disciplines.

6) “History is a rigorous standard. Period.”​

✔️ Partly true, but incomplete​

History does have rigorous methods, including:

  • source criticism
  • contextual analysis
  • corroboration
But rigor does not mean:

  • “only documentation counts”
  • or “only firsthand accounts matter”

7) “Religious beliefs are just faith, no documentation necessary”​

⚠️ Oversimplified​

This is a philosophical claim, not a factual one.

In reality:

  • Some religious beliefs are based on texts and historical claims
  • Others are based on faith independent of evidence
So this statement mixes theology and epistemology, not history.

Bottom line​

  • ❌ The definition of history given here is too narrow and not used by historians
  • ❌ It incorrectly elevates firsthand documentation as the only valid evidence
  • ❌ It dismisses how evidence, interpretation, and scholarly consensus actually work
  • ✔️ It’s true that history uses rigorous methods—but those methods are broader and more complex than described
 
Grim Reaper said:
This claim isn’t a factual statement—it’s a religious opinion presented as fact.
Click to expand...
Explain my religious opinion that was presented as fact. I will then explain your objective error. You really should think these things through, which you can't do if you are letting some AI assistant do your hallucinating for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top