tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-863336524369281662.post5708047615629128949..comments2023-09-20T07:12:07.398-07:00Comments on Veater Ecosan: "The World About Us": Veaterecosanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12641952897751927118noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-863336524369281662.post-16516002777833406462017-01-05T06:26:24.356-08:002017-01-05T06:26:24.356-08:00NOT UNRELATED. NEW MYTHS AND OLD MYTHS MAY STILL R...NOT UNRELATED. NEW MYTHS AND OLD MYTHS MAY STILL RETAIN GRAINS OF TRUTH:<br /><br />"The Bible is not a history book in the modern sense, no. We are beneficiaries (and casualties) of a "scientific method" arguably resurrected from the ancient Greeks/Arabs/Assyrian/Babylonian/Chinese civilizations, but developed to unprecedented levels post 16th C. in Europe. It relies on factual observation to develop and/or prove theory, in preference to divine revelation, although the imaginative process that created E=mC2 for example, gets remarkably close. So we benefit from a historical method that relies on archaeology and the study of original artefacts and documents, if and where they exist. The Bible is definitely one of these and an important one. How many other written texts have survived from perhaps four thousand years ago? Nevertheless we should never apply our modern outlook to ancient texts arrogantly or regard them as unworthy if they fail to meet our modern exacting standards. Nor should we automatically dismiss them as false just because certain aspects appear implausible. For example just because it appears impossible for Noah to have survived a flood with two of every kind of animal (how could he have had a platypus or a kangaroo on board?) does not mean that there was no deluge or that someone might have survived it with the aid of a boat. Ancient myths of catastrophic flood events are too common and widespread for them not to have some truth in them, not to mention some persuasive geological evidence of sediments at some distant time. Just because in the Victorian era, Charles Kingsley and Charles Dickens wrote fiction, does not mean that what they described is without basis in fact. Indeed in some ways it can be said to be more real and alive to the imagination than a factual historical study, not to mention the consideration that the creation of the fiction is itself an historical fact, worthy of study in its own right. The skill resides in being able to distinguish the one from the other."Veaterecosanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12641952897751927118noreply@blogger.com