L.A. Marzulli

[aNorthernSoul]

Yes and no. If you can successfully read between the lines, you may get a nugget of historical insight. But you have to understand how these texts were written.

A case in point: The nation was under captivity in Babylon, displaced from their native region. They had since had time to develop their own communities and came into conflict with the dominant culture, hearing its myths and ideas about life.

There was an old, dilapidated structure -- so old that even the Babylonians themselves couldn't remember when it was built. In any case, it was a slum and an eyesore. The Babylonian ruler proposed to rebuild it.

The writers of the Tower of Babel used this as an opportunity to write a new tract. They used this opportunity to say, in effect, "Oh, here's the real story behind this ruined structure" and it shows our tribal diety as preeminent and it provides a chance to jab at the Babylonians...

It brings together old campfire stories that retain shadowy rememberances of their migration down from the Black Sea region in prehistoric times, the flood that happened there, and the early tribal differences of opinion about the nature of urban vs. pastoral lifestyles...

There are nuggets of historical truth in there. But they're about as much as you might expect from a Stephen King novel.

I think if you take it all in, including the ancient Ukrainian carvings, the Mayan texts, the Celtic texts, the Sumerian, the Biblical, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Vedas and so on, there is much insight there, in my opinion.

I'm curious on this tale of Babel though, care to site your source on it? It sounds like an interesting interpretation of the text. Is it founded in actual legit data?

 

[UBERDOINK]

I have read the posts and have to then ask if all of history is suspect then? How do we know Alexander the Great Lived? How do we know about most of history really, as the original authors can't be hunted down and interviewed and we don't have the original texts there either?

Even more puzzling is how any UFO sighting at all can be believed based on your criteria. These so called sightings aren't made by people I know or can talk to. Also they haven't stood the time of thousands of years of debate and criticism to come out still intact at the other end.

aren't modern accounts MORE unbelievable because they haven't stood the test of time?

 

[David Biedny]

Indeed, history is written by those in power, those with control over the tools to record events. For my money, much of history is absolutely questionable, as we get further away from historical events, their truth is diluted, their reality dimmed, the auxiliary players become even more obscure, the facts are distorted with the passage of time. Is this not obvious? Have you ever played the telephone game? Do you think we have a handle on the actual history of this planet? I suspect not. This is only logical, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that most of the truth of what has happened on this planet is unknown to us. If people today, with the access to information and knowledge that they have, are ignorant of the world around them, what are we to think of those in the past, with almost no knowledge of what was going on beyond their tiny villages, their information controlled by a tiny minority of self-interested "wise men" and clerics? The past is rife with superstition, belief systems, crass ignorance and this reality has poisoned our knowledge of the history of our own species, and sadly, this scourge continues to this day. We never seem to learn anything beyond our own noses and self-interest. How many Americans don't even have a passport, have never visited another country, never tasted another culture? How many people in the third world are in the same boat? My god, man, are you kidding me?

Uberdoink, you have shown a huge gap in understanding the way that history works. I for one now weigh everything you type here with that insight into the tremendous flaw in your logical thinking.

dB

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Indeed, history is written by those in power, those with control over the tools to record events. For my money, much of history is absolutely questionable, as we get further away from historical events, their truth is diluted, their reality dimmed, the auxiliary players become even more obscure, the facts are distorted with the passage of time. Is this not obvious? Have you ever played the telephone game? Do you think we have a handle on the actual history of this planet? I suspect not. This is only logical, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that most of the truth of what has happened on this planet is unknown to us. If people today, with the access to information and knowledge that they have, are ignorant of the world around them, what are we to think of those in the past, with almost no knowledge of what was going on beyond their tiny villages, their information controlled by a tiny minority of self-interested "wise men" and clerics? The past is rife with superstition, belief systems, crass ignorance and this reality has poisoned our knowledge of the history of our own species, and sadly, this scourge continues to this day. We never seem to learn anything beyond our own noses and self-interest. How many Americans don't even have a passport, have never visited another country, never tasted another culture? How many people in the third world are in the same boat? My god, man, are you kidding me?

dB

I think this is true... history is mainly written by the winners... but that is why, like with even current events, you collect as many accounts as possible and try to piece together as clear of a story as possible. Sure, there are bound to be flaws in it, but it's foolish to simply exclude history altogether.

 

[David Biedny]

I think this is true... history is mainly written by the winners... but that is why, like with even current events, you collect as many accounts as possible and try to piece together as clear of a story as possible. Sure, there are bound to be flaws in it, but it's foolish to simply exclude history altogether.

Are you daft? I'm not "excluding history altogether". For fuck's sake, that's why this species is going down, most people seem to be unable to think beyond some simplistic binary view of reality. Must be the bilateral physiology of the human brain, or just crass stupidity. I'm done in this thread. Have fun.

dB

 

[aNorthernSoul]

Are you daft? I'm not "excluding history altogether". For fuck's sake, that's why this species is going down, most people seem to be unable to think beyond some simplistic binary view of reality. Must be the bilateral physiology of the human brain, or just crass stupidity. I'm done in this thread. Have fun.

dB

Of course I'm not. I am simply saying writing off the contents of the Bible and other ancient texts because you disagree with the way religion had adopted them (and yes I agree quite likely altered them) is "daft" as you so eloquently put it. Personally, I think the thing causing this species to "do down" is when someone is so stuck to their own biases and act accordingly in 100% close minded fashion with brashness. Calling people daft? Yeah, real evolved of you... : I totally get that you disagree with religion, I am simply speaking to the subject that has been going back and forth in this thread... that there is validity in the ancient texts.

 

[methshin]

Of course I'm not. I am simply saying writing off the contents of the Bible and other ancient texts because you disagree with the way religion had adopted them (and yes I agree quite likely altered them) is "daft" as you so eloquently put it. Personally, I think the thing causing this species to "do down" is when someone is so stuck to their own biases and act accordingly in 100% close minded fashion with brashness. Calling people daft? Yeah, real evolved of you... : I totally get that you disagree with religion, I am simply speaking to the subject that has been going back and forth in this thread... that there is validity in the ancient texts.

I think you misunderstood what he was saying. He wasn't talking about the bible in particular, but history in general and how it's painfully obvious why and how the history books have/are/or will be written, and to question why that is so, is well, "daft". Humanity as a whole does things for entirely selfish reasons. Countries will write their history how they see fit, that's nothing new, and what we have to do as socially aware people is to try and find the few sources that we can be certain, or relatively certain at least, that have useful nuggets of truth.

What you seem to not understand is that we have to question the validity of ancient texts. I mean, do we uphold the Viking lore as having some sort of relevance to the paranormal field?

You need to remember that we cannot use unverified sources as valid. Whether it is the Bible, the Book of Enoch, or Dianetics. The have not been cited by scientists, doctors, astronomers, physicists, or anybody that should rightly be considered as a credible source.

 

[David Biedny]

Thanks for "getting it", methshin.

98%. 2%. It all boils down to this ratio. Everything. Take your pick. How much of written history reflects the actuality of what actually fucking happened? 2%. How many people would hand their history over to sick old men with weird sexual kinks and a desire to rule the world? 98%. Just depressing.

"Likely altered"? Oh just cut my fucking head off. Let the aliens/interdimensionals/broccoli take over this planet. The talking monkeys don't deserve it, they want plastic and squishy shizniz and disco music with shit biscuits. I want some peace, quiet and a hot chocolate with my love. Everything else can go burn, including 98% of the bullshit on the internets. You want to worship your Bible, have at it. Hope it works out for ya, silly shmeckies - if that's your God in there, he's a might brutal bastard. You can keep him, I'll go for the god chick with the endless orgasms.

dB

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I think you misunderstood what he was saying. He wasn't talking about the bible in particular, but history in general and how it's painfully obvious why and how the history books have/are/or will be written, and to question why that is so, is well, "daft". Humanity as a whole does things for entirely selfish reasons. Countries will write their history how they see fit, that's nothing new, and what we have to do as socially aware people is to try and find the few sources that we can be certain, or relatively certain at least, that have useful nuggets of truth.

What you seem to not understand is that we have to question the validity of ancient texts. I mean, do we uphold the Viking lore as having some sort of relevance to the paranormal field?

You need to remember that we cannot use unverified sources as valid. Whether it is the Bible, the Book of Enoch, or Dianetics. The have not been cited by scientists, doctors, astronomers, physicists, or anybody that should rightly be considered as a credible source.

No I understood. In fact, I was agreeing with him in part, but via bringing it back to the point of the ancient texts as an example, speaking on how all data should be looked at. Sure, with ancient history it cannot all be verified 100%, but it can be somewhat verified. You could take Viking lore if it proved to be corroborated with similar data from another source. This is actually easily done with a lot of the ancient texts. I was being stern in that I don't appreciate someone calling me daft, and speaking on what is bringing humanity down when it's much more apparent the culprit would be close mindedness, bias, and being a prick, then running away from discussion that would be far more likely a cause of that. Name calling, and metaphorically doing the "ear plug, I can't hear you" take is hardly going to lead to any answers.

 

[methshin]

No I understood. In fact, I was agreeing with him in part, but via bringing it back to the point of the ancient texts as an example, speaking on how all data should be looked at. Sure, with ancient history it cannot all be verified 100%, but it can be somewhat verified. You could take Viking lore if it proved to be corroborated with similar data from another source. This is actually easily done with a lot of the ancient texts. I was being stern in that I don't appreciate someone calling me daft, and speaking on what is bringing humanity down when it's much more apparent the culprit would be close mindedness, bias, and being a prick, then running away from discussion that would be far more likely a cause of that. Name calling, and metaphorically doing the "ear plug, I can't hear you" take is hardly going to lead to any answers.

I really don't think you do understand, and I really mean no offence. But taking one ancient text and finding similarities in other texts is not grounds for using it as science fact or historical accuracy. Think back 2500 years ago, how many people had access to pen and paper? Very few. So few, that it can pretty much be guaranteed that all of these books were written by the same societies that shared a system of beleif, whose stories were passed on through the ages and through the dialects. As was the case of literature up till about 300 years ago, and even then, literacy rates were still abysmal.

And once again, he didn't call you daft, he asked you if you were for not seeing how history has been written, go reread the posts. You questioned why history books are written in such a manor that the truth gets manipulated, and that is what you pondered. David replied that it is obvious why this is, which it is. The greed and lust for control must only be matched by ego and of course, a clean reputation.

If Morgan Freeman was an omnipotent cloud riding man who travelled across history transcribing events how they happened, then maybe we could look at it seriously. But they were written by men, men who were paid by other men that were interested in having a legacy.

You are absolutly correct to say that humanity is being brought down by bias and close mindedness, which is exactly why the history books are written the way they are.

If that doesn't explain it, I give up.

 

[UBERDOINK]

If that doesn't explain it, I give up.

Good. Because that doesn't explain it because it's not based on any REAL form of researched historical facts, only assumptions colored by your belief system.

To be fair, if you study the matter, you are 100% wrong on how you account history is passed down.

But why study, when you already know the answers

 

[Xylo]

Good. Because that doesn't explain it because it's not based on any REAL form of researched historical facts, only assumptions colored by your belief system.

To be fair, if you study the matter, you are 100% wrong on how you account history is passed down.

But why study, when you already know the answers

Wow 100% wrong? Pretty broad brush there.

The simple reason for this discussion is that we DON'T know the answers, and the written word, from whatever era, is always suspect. To say find a few truths in the bible and then proclaim it accurate is like finding a black grain of sand on a beach and calling it a black beach.

The same goes with any historical document, or groups of documents. I'll be the first to admit that my OPINION could be wrong, but I'm willing to discuss it rationally and learn, unlike some others.

 

[UBERDOINK]

Wow 100% wrong? Pretty broad brush there.

ok 99.99% wrong, with a plus minus 1% error.

It is amazing in this world, that opinions count as much as facts.

I see it as a sign of the declining culture.

 

[Xylo]

ok 99.99% wrong, with a plus minus 1% error.

It is amazing in this world, that opinions count as much as facts.

I see it as a sign of the declining culture.

I haven't seen any facts in this thread.

 

[methshin]

Good. Because that doesn't explain it because it's not based on any REAL form of researched historical facts, only assumptions colored by your belief system.

To be fair, if you study the matter, you are 100% wrong on how you account history is passed down.

But why study, when you already know the answers

Then please indulge me on how the history books are written. I'd really like to know. I've always gone under the assumption that the history books are written by those in power, but hey, you've obviously got the right answer, so lets hear it.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I really don't think you do understand, and I really mean no offence. But taking one ancient text and finding similarities in other texts is not grounds for using it as science fact or historical accuracy. Think back 2500 years ago, how many people had access to pen and paper? Very few. So few, that it can pretty much be guaranteed that all of these books were written by the same societies that shared a system of beleif, whose stories were passed on through the ages and through the dialects. As was the case of literature up till about 300 years ago, and even then, literacy rates were still abysmal.

And once again, he didn't call you daft, he asked you if you were for not seeing how history has been written, go reread the posts. You questioned why history books are written in such a manor that the truth gets manipulated, and that is what you pondered. David replied that it is obvious why this is, which it is. The greed and lust for control must only be matched by ego and of course, a clean reputation.

If Morgan Freeman was an omnipotent cloud riding man who travelled across history transcribing events how they happened, then maybe we could look at it seriously. But they were written by men, men who were paid by other men that were interested in having a legacy.

You are absolutly correct to say that humanity is being brought down by bias and close mindedness, which is exactly why the history books are written the way they are.

If that doesn't explain it, I give up.

Thanks for "getting it", methshin.

98%. 2%. It all boils down to this ratio. Everything. Take your pick. How much of written history reflects the actuality of what actually fucking happened? 2%. How many people would hand their history over to sick old men with weird sexual kinks and a desire to rule the world? 98%. Just depressing.

"Likely altered"? Oh just cut my fucking head off. Let the aliens/interdimensionals/broccoli take over this planet. The talking monkeys don't deserve it, they want plastic and squishy shizniz and disco music with shit biscuits. I want some peace, quiet and a hot chocolate with my love. Everything else can go burn, including 98% of the bullshit on the internets. You want to worship your Bible, have at it. Hope it works out for ya, silly shmeckies - if that's your God in there, he's a might brutal bastard. You can keep him, I'll go for the god chick with the endless orgasms.

dB

I think you both sort of misunderstand me as well. I am not religious at all. BUT I think because we misunderstand ancient history, in my opinion, there is value in digging through the old texts as there are wisdoms there we don't fully understand. We KNOW that history was most likely altered (and yes David, I say "most likely" because I try not to throw around accusations and insults so carelessly) and there is likely more information there than we realize. The best way to understand the present is to know your past. Afterall, it's how you got where you are.

Anyway, I also think that the UFO phenomenon seems to operate outside our current understanding of the sciences, reality, and whatnot. Because of this, I think we need to open up discussion to some of the more spiritual/esoteric mindsets for clues. Many of these things are rooted in some ancient understandings that exist outside common knowledge. Also, it seems more and more these days like science is catching up to some of the things esoteric groups have known for decades/centuries/?? and therefor, one shouldn't be so quick to throw out these concepts and perspectives on something we are FAR from understanding. I don't mean grab a bible and start preaching the "good word".... I mean just allow someone coming at the phenomenon with this perspective to speak his thoughts on it and take the possibly good and leave the bad.

 

[methshin]

I agree that we should look into the history books for some information and knowledge, but you have to try and find other explanations and view a possible other side to the story that is written. All that David and I are stating is that history books are not to be taken as 100% accurate. We aren't saying the books are useless, but have to be looked at with some skepticism.

As I stated before, the books are written by those whose interests are invested in public image, thus the truths often get manipulated to better suit those interests.

I barely trust what I see with my own eyes, and it's a big stretch for me to beleive the writings of someone I've never met. It's important to come to conclusions on your own, and I certainly recommend using books in order to assist you, but to rely exclusively on these writings is a great way to have a subjective viewpoint.

All things aside, I've enjoyed this debate/discussion Northern, even though we have differing views, it's still been a great chance to talk.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

I agree that we should look into the history books for some information and knowledge, but you have to try and find other explanations and view a possible other side to the story that is written. All that David and I are stating is that history books are not to be taken as 100% accurate. We aren't saying the books are useless, but have to be looked at with some skepticism.

As I stated before, the books are written by those whose interests are invested in public image, thus the truths often get manipulated to better suit those interests.

I barely trust what I see with my own eyes, and it's a big stretch for me to beleive the writings of someone I've never met. It's important to come to conclusions on your own, and I certainly recommend using books in order to assist you, but to rely exclusively on these writings is a great way to have a subjective viewpoint.

All things aside, I've enjoyed this debate/discussion Northern, even though we have differing views, it's still been a great chance to talk.

I agree with that. I would add that I think you (in the general sense) should also open up to various interpretations on the history books. Obviously, you may not agree with the overall thesis, but it may get your mind looking in some other direction you didn't initially think of.

I've enjoyed it too! I even enjoyed David's thoughts minus the slams to my good name. Ha! Oh well, it wasn't that good to begin with....

 

[methshin]

I agree with that. I would add that I think you (in the general sense) should also open up to various interpretations on the history books. Obviously, you may not agree with the overall thesis, but it may get your mind looking in some other direction you didn't initially think of.

I've enjoyed it too! I even enjoyed David's thoughts minus the slams to my good name. Ha! Oh well, it wasn't that good to begin with....

I do read a lot, it occupies a good chunk of time. History was always a favorite subject of mine and I almost went to school with hopes of being a historian or a curator at a museum, but opted for the family business as it was a much more secured venture, though history and stories past are still a huge interest of mine.

I always look at history books with a skeptical eye though as I understand who the books are written by. You can use most of the information in them, but there is so much information in there that I often view as speculative or even worse, manipulated. I enjoy hearing opinions and theories, even some of the more obtuse ones, but hearing and beleiving are quite far apart, and I have a hard time beleiving anything that hasn't scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or I haven't witnessed with my own eyes, and even then, science and the human brain are fickle things.

 

[threed]

In the end, though, all history books -- regardless of who writes them -- are fiction. You have a few blips of raw data. What goes between is "your" interpretation.

You weren't there. You don't really know what the participants were thinking or truly being motivated by. Even memoirs are putting their best foot forward and just designed to masturbate.

And when a new generation of history professors come along, how do you think they will make a name for themselves? By referring you to the previous generations' professors? No, by overturning them and reinterpreting their works. Even if their own revisionist reinterpretation is complete BS. You revise. It becomes politically correct. Then someone revises you. On it goes.

History -- like everything else -- is written to fit market demands. If people don't want to see it that way, then they'll write it some other way.

In the end, nobody really knows what the hell happened. I think your best response to "historical accuracy" is a burst of laughter.