How factual is history..

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
How factual is history we read about today as compared to what was really written. Chat about anything historical that may interest you.

History has been rewritten and changed so many times that no one really knows what happened more than a couple hundred years ago. Foe example today one learns that the American Civil War was over slavery. The war really over economics and the coming of the "Machine Age", slavery only was another excuse that got a segment of the population to get involved who probably would not have supported it otherwise. Another little tidbit. President Lincoln though he did not support slavery would never have gone to war over it. Today all we hear about is how slavery caused the war.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Isn't that about the time company town cropped up? If the slaves in the south were set up so their wages just managed to pay for the 'goods' they received the the north was doing the very same thing in the 'industrial towns' that were manned by poor immigrants from (mostly) Europe, that would seem to equal the US making more people slaves (to the system) than anybody gaining freedom in the true sense of the word.
Is that a valid comparison?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
I remember in Quebec growing up where the English school system said the Mohawk were the good guys (because they supported the British in ousting the French), but in the French school system the Algonquin were the good guys (because they sided with the French). Petros is right, it is just His Story written by the victor. I am sure the Vietnamese have a very different take on the history of the war than in the US, and the Russians have a very different take on the cold war.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Apparently Mr Lincoln wanted to end slavery AND sell all the slaves off to one of the island colonies.

Which one, don't think we had any back then. :)

I remember in Quebec growing up where the English school system said the Mohawk were the good guys (because they supported the British in ousting the French), but in the French school system the Algonquin were the good guys (because they sided with the French). Petros is right, it is just His Story written by the victor. I am sure the Vietnamese have a very different take on the history of the war than in the US, and the Russians have a very different take on the cold war.

Bet the Russians do have a different take on the "Cold War", but I know we one that one, got a medal for it. The Vietnamese on the other hand have pretty much put it behind them, they don't gloat about it, in fact they are very nice to those allies who fought against them when we visit. Beautiful place to visit by the way.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Isn't that about the time company town cropped up? If the slaves in the south were set up so their wages just managed to pay for the 'goods' they received the the north was doing the very same thing in the 'industrial towns' that were manned by poor immigrants from (mostly) Europe, that would seem to equal the US making more people slaves (to the system) than anybody gaining freedom in the true sense of the word.
Is that a valid comparison?

Just about the time immigration from Europe started. Many gained citizenship by enlisting, especially in the North. We all became slaves to the new system unless you happened to be part of royalty or the rich (even today). But for years the slaves were beneath even them. I should have used the term "Industrial Revolution" which started in Great Britain, then moved to the United States and the rest of Europe.
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Response to OP:

About as factual as the moon being made of cheese. I mean if a story can't go from one side of the room to the other at a party without becoming totally different what makes you think the story can remain true over hundreds or thoudsands of years.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
How factual is history we read about today as compared to what was really written. Chat about anything historical that may interest you.

History has been rewritten and changed so many times that no one really knows what happened more than a couple hundred years ago. Foe example today one learns that the American Civil War was over slavery. The war really over economics and the coming of the "Machine Age", slavery only was another excuse that got a segment of the population to get involved who probably would not have supported it otherwise. Another little tidbit. President Lincoln though he did not support slavery would never have gone to war over it. Today all we hear about is how slavery caused the war.


It is pretty much a given that although the US civil war was fought over state's rights, the right the Confederate states was most concerned about was the right to own people. In other words if the US had not had slavery it may not have had a civil war.

It used to be said that history was written by the winners, but that axiom changed in the 19th Century and especially in the 20th Century when historians from the losing side were able to have their points of view published. A prime example of that is southerner Shelby Foote's superb history of the US civil war. I think if you read it, especially the first few chapters of the history which focus on the origins of the war, you will find that slavery played a major part in the development of the attitudes that led to war.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Response to OP:

About as factual as the moon being made of cheese. I mean if a story can't go from one side of the room to the other at a party without becoming totally different what makes you think the story can remain true over hundreds or thoudsands of years.

The Torah is the most accurate translation of a historical in the world. It as it was told to Moses.

The great success of Jewish tradition is the meticulous transmission of the Torah text. But actually how accurate is is? How do we know that the Torah we have today is the same text given on Mount Sinai?

The Torah was originally dictated from God to Moses, letter for letter. From there, the Midrash (Devarim Rabba 9:4) tells us:

Before his death, Moses wrote 13 Torah Scrolls. Twelve of these were distributed to each of the 12 Tribes. The 13th was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (with the Tablets). If anyone would come and attempt to rewrite or falsify the Torah, the one in the Ark would "testify" against him. (Likewise, if he had access to the scroll in the Ark and tried to falsify it, the distributed copies would "testify" against him.)

How were the new scrolls verified? An authentic "proof text" was always kept in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, against which all other scrolls would be checked. Following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Sages would periodically perform global checks to weed out any scribal errors.


WRITING A TORAH SCROLL

To eliminate any chance of human error, the Talmud enumerates more than 20 factors mandatory for a Torah scroll to be considered "kosher." This is the Torah's built-in security system. Should any one of these factors be lacking, it does not possess the sanctity of a Torah scroll, and is not to be used for a public Torah reading.
The meticulous process of hand-copying a scroll takes about 2,000 hours (a full-time job for one year). Throughout the centuries, Jewish scribes have adhered to the following guidelines:

A Torah Scroll is disqualified if even a single letter is added.

A Torah Scroll is disqualified if even a single letter is deleted.

The scribe must be a learned, pious Jew, who has undergone special training and certification.

All materials (parchment, ink, quill) must conform to strict specifications, and be prepared specifically for the purpose of writing a Torah Scroll.

The scribe may not write even one letter into a Torah Scroll by heart. Rather, he must have a second, kosher scroll opened before him at all times.

The scribe must pronounce every word out loud before copying it from the correct text.

Every letter must have sufficient white space surrounding it. If one letter touched another in any spot, it invalidates the entire scroll.

If a single letter was so marred that it cannot be read at all, or resembles another letter (whether the defect is in the writing, or is due to a hole, tear or smudge), this invalidates the entire scroll. Each letter must be sufficiently legible so that even an ordinary schoolchild could distinguish it from other, similar letters.

The scribe must put precise space between words, so that one word will not look like two words, or two words look like one word.

The scribe must not alter the design of the sections, and must conform to particular line-lengths and paragraph configurations.

A Torah Scroll in which any mistake has been found, cannot be used, and must be fixed within 30 days, or buried.

SUCCESS OF THE SYSTEM

Maintaining the accuracy of any document as ancient and as large as the Torah is very challenging even under the best of circumstances.

But consider that throughout history, Jewish communities were subject to widespread persecutions and exile. Over the last 2,000 years, Jews have been spread to the four corners of the world, from Yemen to Poland, from Australia to Alaska.

myLot - How accurate is The Torah vs the Bible?

It is pretty much a given that although the US civil war was fought over state's rights, the right the Confederate states was most concerned about was the right to own people. In other words if the US had not had slavery it may not have had a civil war.

It used to be said that history was written by the winners, but that axiom changed in the 19th Century and especially in the 20th Century when historians from the losing side were able to have their points of view published. A prime example of that is southerner Shelby Foote's superb history of the US civil war. I think if you read it, especially the first few chapters of the history which focus on the origins of the war, you will find that slavery played a major part in the development of the attitudes that led to war.
The term slavery was used to admit or deny state hood to the territories, but was not a key issue for actually going to war, I am not saying it wasen't one of many reasons for the war, just not that important at the time. When Shelby wrote his fine book, it was slanted to the politics of the mid 1950's and descrimination was waking up in this country. Emphisis on the cause of the war began to surround slavery. I read his book back when I was 17-18 or so.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
God has several Scribes in Babylon after the exile, Daniel and his friend would have been the ones to put the OT in writing. The first 5 books were oral books prior to then and if any errors were introduced (and it is unlikely that there were zero errors as they did suffer exile for not being able to follow those same instructions) Those would have been eliminated and once in writing it could then copies be as accurate as the original even after 1,000 years. That also means the NT is as accurate as the OT, just sayin ..... a Scribe from either camp is just as talented as the other is.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
Like the downfall of the USSR: some claim that Reagan did it, by asking someone to tear down the wall; oddly enough, al Qaeda believes they did it by fighting so long and hard in Afghanistan.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
God has several Scribes in Babylon after the exile, Daniel and his friend would have been the ones to put the OT in writing. The first 5 books were oral books prior to then and if any errors were introduced (and it is unlikely that there were zero errors as they did suffer exile for not being able to follow those same instructions) Those would have been eliminated and once in writing it could then copies be as accurate as the original even after 1,000 years. That also means the NT is as accurate as the OT, just sayin ..... a Scribe from either camp is just as talented as the other is.
So what you are saying is that oral tradition is just as accurate as the written word. If the oral tradition of the Jews can remain accurate for 1000 yeras, then the oral traditions of indigenous people is just as accurate and therefore just as valid as the OT. And that would include just about every indigenous culture world wide. That validates what I have been saying for decades, the word was given to all people in all historical time frames in a way they could understand and relate to. When historical and cultural realities are taken into consideration, everybody has had the truth all along. They don't need the bible or the Quran, they just need to continue their own traditions. The nonsense that only those who accept Christ is then also invalid, unless Christ is a state of consciousness and not a person. Then everybody has the same chance at redemption and salvation as any Christian or Muslim. Ain't that a kick in the pants!
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
So what you are saying is that oral tradition is just as accurate as the written word.
No I was saying an oral book can't be kept accurate over long periods of time.

Daniel and his friewnd were in Babylon, they would have been the ones who put the oral book into a written form. Since the book of Daniel has God sending Angels to Daniel during that time then those Angels would also have assisted the writers in making the oral book 100% accurate again. It is no different than the aid the Apostles were promised.

Joh.14:26
But the Comforter,
which is the Holy Ghost,
whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.
 

Johnnny

Frontiersman
Jun 8, 2007
9,388
124
63
Third rock from the Sun
Apparently Mr Lincoln wanted to end slavery AND sell all the slaves off to one of the island colonies.

No Abe lincoln wanted to free the slaves and send them to Africa which he considered the slaves native land even though most were born in America. Wendell Phillips called Abe a 1st rate, 2nd rate man because Abe suggested the idea of sending them back to Africa
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
How factual is history we read about today as compared to what was really written. Chat about anything historical that may interest you.

History has been rewritten and changed so many times that no one really knows what happened more than a couple hundred years ago. Foe example today one learns that the American Civil War was over slavery. The war really over economics and the coming of the "Machine Age", slavery only was another excuse that got a segment of the population to get involved who probably would not have supported it otherwise. Another little tidbit. President Lincoln though he did not support slavery would never have gone to war over it. Today all we hear about is how slavery caused the war.

Yet the South were the least progressive when it came to civil rights for blacks.

Have you just tried to change history old boy.....me thinks yes.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
History can't be changed but if you think it can I have a used time machine that was stolen from the UFO at Chance Harbour in 19sixty seven. It's still in the box. A rare find for any would be time travelers. PM me for price and details.

That should read Shag Harbour. The piece from Chance Harbour is defective and half price.
 
Last edited: