Historical truths are different from scientific truths. With scientific truths we can discover new evidence for particular theories by means of induction.

The question still remains, what would discoverable historical proof be for the fall & other biblical stories?

Still a good question.  I was referring not to scientific proof alone but to writings, carvings, manuscripts that can prove the age and veracity of the "truth". At this time in history we assume that the original version of the Fall was not written or captured. So it had to be passed down as oral history. Then it was finally written down. The proof is the oral traditions not written.

There is definable proof other than the tradition. Cannot be proven or disproved by either side of the debate.

It seems according to Lee's absolutist universal theory of truth that all people must necessarily apprehend God in the same way, otherwise this leaves room for subjective error of perceptions in finding him. I'm not sure how this is possible. Mustn't we leave room for some sort of variance in the ways in which we find God?



Care to elaborate on this one, Paul?

I agree with you that people may apprehend God in many different situations. A person may come to faith in God through the death of a loved one or someone my find God through an addiction of some sort. My problem is not necessarily with the different situations in finding God or God finding us my contention is with what people believe to be the one true God. Belief is what makes us who we are. It's critical!

The definable would be the actual persons and location. `Next would be the 3rd person discussions, 3rd in line would be person in charge of keeping history of the clan.  At this time science is unable to split time itself to verify the actual sequencing.  Just because we cannot discern the original, doesn't mean that it didn't happen, Just that it is questionable and you have a theory that it didn't. 

As you note, this is historical fact, not scientific which means different proof patterns are afforded the fact.

Anxiety - I agree on your definition per historical proof, the problem comes in when the history happened before there was any manner of documentation. 

The American Indians chose to pass on their history verbally, and they were only written down sometime in the 1800's.  The historical accuracy is based on the current oral historian. For practical reasons we assume that they are true. But there is factual documentation. So goes any historical events that occurred prior to the ability to document.

The question invites the need or lack of the Fall and other stories be historically true for faith.

Lee has noted that to him I thought I answered your original question in post #10? The fall must be true otherwise there was no need for Christ to die and the entire Bible falls apart. Or, in other words the Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales and Christ would be a lair.



While I tend to disagree with Lee on his analysis, it does not mean that it is absolutely true to him. The second sentence of his, I find to be more sarcasm then his belief.  But that is more a perspective of mine.

Which leads me wonder what happens to a belief pattern so entrenched in defending past history documentation over the moral, societal discovery of evolving influences and traditions, if one part is documented to be false. Is it a faith or a defense of a hypothesis that is the main purpose?

Lee - taking your thought of God's grace being the only qualifier for an afterlife, and accepting that God 's way is beyond our comprehension to fathom, why is there such a disdain for other religions?  If Jesus was sacrificed for all mankind to allow God's grace to be the primary entry, does your religion contemplates that it knows what the parameter of God's grace is? This has been a confusing aspect that I haven't been able to discovery where humans suddenly are on the same mental plane as God.

Apostle Paul is quite interesting to me. He never studied under Jesus, his understanding of Jesus and his teachings were second hand oral sayings, he testifies that the conversion written in Acts by the Disciples is in error and he did not meet with them as noted but went outright to another land, met Peter and James for one week and for 15 years he had no interaction with the leaders of his theology. He claims his authority on his own, states that he had a vision, which gave him authority. Yet he is given almost primary authority over the disciples. If there is a disagreement with the Disciples, he is given the final word, yet the others actually lived, loved, and learned from Jesus. He is the one of Grace, not the disciples.

He also lived with the silversmiths and their religion and different Gods. But he did not debase their Gods, the even testify on his behalf when questioned about the "truth"  that he was telling. If he could accept another religion as being viable, why does this generation unable to do so?

The story of the fall is prehistoric -- that is, there are no correlate written accounts during whatever time the fall supposedly happened and the accounts as they are contained in the Old Testament. This is of course, because (presumably) writing was not yet discovered.

New Testament Bible stories do not share this feature. In fact, during the time of Jesus there were plenty of Roman historians. These historians recorded even the most mundane of details, yet we don't seem to get any correlative accounts and the accounts in the New Testament. What does this do to your definition of truth?