Read and highlight pages 25-29 carefully and answer these questions: What is the difference between "religious truth" and "historical truth?" Do you believe they are both valid forms of truth? Explain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Future of Religion
Click here
Future of American Catholicism
Click on the picture
Watch this video!
Click on this picture
Happy Easter!
The Sophomore Class Blog is Here!
Click on this picture!
Slum Dog
Click on the picture
Slum Dog Millionare Dance
Click on the Picture
Islamic Woman in Arabia
The Trial of Jesus
Jesus Christ Superstar Play
Take the Jerusalem Temple Youtube Tour!
Click here!
The Media Club Link is Here!
Click on this picture!
Mr. Bauer as a Sophomore!
Too Cool! Click on picture to see CBA-SYRACUSE
SYRACUSE CRUSH! SU 95, Villanova 77.
34,641 watch SU set a new NCAA record for attendance!
About Me
- Mr. J. Bauer
- My name is Joseph "Jay" Bauer, I am a major advocate for "online education" and technology in student education.
Religious truth is the interpretation of the Bible (or any other religious text) that is not necessarily literal; where you find the meaning of parables or stories behind it.While historical truth has origins and has been recorded by history. I believe they are both valid forms of truth because they both describe a certain situation in different ways but not necessarily wrong.
ReplyDeleteReligious truth is way different from Historical truth because... religious truth is what we believe happened in the Bible. Historical truth is all based on facts and TRUTHS,where as religious truth is as Judy said an interpretation of what people thought happened and symbolic of what really happened.
ReplyDeleteI believe that religious truth is probably much harder to interpret correctly than historical truth. Mostly because of the fact that the people who wrote the Old Testament weren't too well educated. Consequently, most of what's written in the Old Testament is written from the "layman's" point of view. Meaning that whatever is written is very symbolic, religious, and overall superstitious because people didn't understand the science behind most events that happened. However, historical truth is basically the opposite, instead of looking for a deeper religious meaning in events, historical truth searches for the logical explanation for events in the Bible. I choose to believe that both are very valid interpretations of the truth, and that although it is harder to interpret the Bible based on logic, it is not impossible. Besides, seeing the average Jew's point of view is much more interesting, because they choose to explain historical events much more vividly than most historians would.
ReplyDeleteReligious truth is the understanding of any religious writing and the deeper meaning that god intends to reveal to us through historical events. I believe it is harder to understand religious truth because you have to look pass what is actually written and find a deeper meaning other than what can be simply read. Historical truth is just simple recordings of observable facts and event that have no other meaning than what is being portrayed.
ReplyDeleteIn any situation there's always two sides of the story, according to the Bible, there is religious and historical truth. Religious truth tries to show the moral message that God is trying to send throughout the story. The writers weren't into what exactly happened, instead they were more obsessed with the lesson that should be learned from reading a certain passage. Historical truth is way different from religious truth, because the writers focus more on facts that actually happened such as time and place. Yes, they are both valid forms of truth, even though each focuses slightly on different messages, they both mention the same story, but in a different viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteReligious truth is mostly based on metaphors, and truths related to the bible, such as the Israelites crossing the Red Sea. It describes more of a symbolic picture than a realistic one. Historical truths are facts based on the gathering of knowledge, due to a study or with your own eyes. It's more provable than religious truth.
ReplyDeleteReligious truth is about the deeper meaning that God intends to reveal to His people throughout historical events. The authors of the biblical literature interpreted events in light of their own faith convictions. This led Christians into believing that the Scriptures contained the essential truth about Jesus. Historical truth is the opposite: It states facts about events that precisely happened. Also, it's interpreted through the eyes and perspective of the person doing the recording. I agree they are both valid forms of proof but with different perspectives just as Bianca mentioned. It all depends on which one seems more believable to a person. Though, I think historical truth sounds more believable because of it's accurate facts and proof.
ReplyDeleteReligious truth is the way the Bible or other relgious documents see things. Relgious truth is not always literal its in metaphors or messages. We have to remember the Gospels were written from certain perspective shaped in culture, different languages, geography, technology and history. So people spoke different and told there stories different ways. But historical truth is the proof that these things happened. At the time someone kept a record and recorder the information. I believe they are both valid forms a truth just religious truth requires more thinking and really thinking about what God was trying to say and historical truth is easier to be proven because we have records.
ReplyDeleteReligious truth is intended to portray the main messages from God to his people through historical events while avoiding historical facts and interpretation from one person or even a group of people. It is more of an outlook to take consideration in believing faith. Historical truth is viewed by actual events to prove real facts that happened at a particular time or place. Both are valid forms of truth because they represent the same concept of the message, but with different view points.
ReplyDeleteGood job so far! Victoria, I especially liked your observation and I hope everyone reads it.
ReplyDeleteAmanda and Bianca also had some very good points.
Keep up the good work!
Religious and historical truth are two ways that are used to identify and depict a certain event that occurred in history.Religious truth may not be incorrect, but may be spiced up to make the reader feel as though they are in the moment. It gives the reader a feel for actually being there and experiencing all the mixed emotions that they would have been feeling at the time. However, we must take into account that religious truth uses particular metaphors that must be watched out for while reading the Bible or any other religious based literature. Sometimes a metaphor may be overlooked because the reader didn't carefully look into the phrase. When reading something with a religious point of view of it, we must make sure to understand its factual core. The other form of truth, historical truth, can be thought of as a play by play account of events that occurred in a certain situation. This is made up of facts about an event that can also be used to better understand an event told in a religious point of view. I think that they are both valid forms of truth that contain information which must be carefully studied. By taking the time to understand what we are reading, we are making a much better effort to improve our knowledge on events that occurred at a certain time.
ReplyDeleteHistorical truth is fact. There is no dispute about it because it is recorded truth and history. Religious truth is symbolic and has a message or lesson behind it. I believe religious truth can be considered a valid truth but it requires more faith and reading "between the lines". Historical truth is clearly valid, depending on your source of course.
ReplyDeleteReligious truth is exaggerated, to show symbolism of something that happened to make it sound more amazing and spectacular then it really is. Historical truth is what actually happened, and is in know way exaggerated to make it more interesting or seem greater than it is.
ReplyDeleteReligious truth and Historical truth are both ways that tell a story of something that happened. Historic truth is like a text book, and the story is told exactly how it happened. Religious truth is not always factual and is sometimes expressed through a story, song, or poem, and has more of a deeper meaning that has to do with morality.
ReplyDeleteReligious truth is basically based on faith and historical truth is based on faith.I think they are both valid truths for different people. For very faithful people the religious truth is very true because it plays a big part in their faith and what they believe in. Historical truth is important for people who feel that they need to know exaxtly what happened and acurately.
ReplyDeleteReligious truth is different from historical truth because religious truth is what we are told happened in the Bible. Historical truth is based on facts or possibilities. I don't think religious truth can be considered a valid form of truth because if it is not 100% factual then its technically not the truth.
ReplyDelete