200
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 47:
Line 47: + +
→Rewrite: Reply to PJR
: Regarding the biblical history part, this seems to be special pleading. The way that historians of ancient history "verify" things is mainly from ancient documents supplemented where possible by archaeological evidence (which is usually far less specific, except regarding location). So the Bible being a reliable ancient document, what's the problem?
: Regarding the biblical history part, this seems to be special pleading. The way that historians of ancient history "verify" things is mainly from ancient documents supplemented where possible by archaeological evidence (which is usually far less specific, except regarding location). So the Bible being a reliable ancient document, what's the problem?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:03, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
:: Some of the Biblical statements in the article have been verified true (that the psalms were intended to be sung); some have not been verified but in principle could be (that King David had a 4,000 voice choir); and others cannot be confirmed (that music began in heaven and that Lucifer was the first musician). The first sort of statement should certainly belong in a history section; the second sort probably could; but the third sort definitely shouldn't. It was because of the third type of statement that I created a separate Bible section. Having done that, it then made more sense to me to have the other Biblical references there too.
:: How about a compromise, where the History section mentions the psalms and King David's choir, while the Bible section goes into greater detail on these, and also mentions those things which are not a matter of history (that the Bible mentions music more than any other art form is a fact, but is it a ''historical'' fact?), and those things which cannot be verified by the historical method? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 06:37, 5 May 2008 (EDT)