Historical Evidence for the Book of Ruth

[Guest shiloh357]

But that's more reasonable and very different from accepting genealogies as evidence for the truthfulness of stories about a person in the genealogy. That doesn't seem to be a reasonable method for determining if the stories are true.

 

Actually the first step in determining that the story is true is accepting that the existence of the person(s) mentioned in the story is true.   I think Paul is correct in saying that you don't really understand the importance of geealogical records in the biblical era.  This is particularly true when you consider the fact that we are talking about the genealogy of a king and need to establish his lineage.  Futhermore, if you notice in the genealogical record in the book of Matthew the name of another woman is mentioned, that being Rahab, who was a prostitute.  That's important because she is the ancestor of Boaz who was of the Tribe of Judah.  Boaz was a nobleman in the book of Ruth and to have a genealogy that includes Rahab would be othewise distasteful, but the writer doesn't try to cover up that fact.  That demonstrates a willingness and an attempt at presenting an honest record by not whitewashing the facts which might seem inconvenient.

 

Genealogical records were very, very important for one thing because they established property rights and also in this case establishes the right of someone to claim the right to rule.    In terms of property rights,  it wasn't like it is today.  Your ability to remain the owner of a piece of property and your right to live on that property hinged on being able to prove that it belonged to your family for several generations.   Having an accurate genealogy meant the difference between having a good life or starving to death as a homeless vagabond.   Your genealogy was the most important document that you owned.

 

This was even more important for Kings because the piece of property they needed to establish their right to was the throne, for all intents and purposes.   It cannot be over emphasized how important a truthful and accurate genealogical record is.  There was no incentive to fabricate anything  when it comes to genealogies in the Bible times.

 

Again, the story of Ruth is embedded in several layers of verifiable cultural/historical contexts and one of those layers is the genealogical record which is well established.  So understanding the genealogical aspect of this story is very important and contrary to what you think is a very reasonable method for determining the truthfulness of the record.

 

What if there are different stories about Ruth with those same "evidence", but those stories were in conflict with the stories you already accept as true? You can't accept both as true, so which do you reject?

Once again Swoosh, this is a story about one obscure family in Bethelehem, a relatively obscure town in Judah at the time.  It is unlikely that the story of Ruth caught the attention of any other historian of the time period. There are no other historical records for all of the minute details of all events specific to story of Ruth, but I think you know that.  That is why you erect an unreachable standard of proof.  You erect a ridiculous standard that you know can't be met because such a standard preserves your unbelief.

 

You don't want the story to be true, is the bottom line. If we could provide multiple sources for the events and details, you would want corroborration for the sources that corroborate Ruth and it would be an endless cycle of having to dig up sources to confirm sources, going on and on ad infinitum.  So ntil you are willing to deal with the evidence that is available instead of dreaming up some unrealistic evidentiary standard that no one can meet, you are unable to engage in a serious conversation on this topic.

 

.

[GoldenEagle]

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” - Stuart Chase

[Swoosh]

Swoosh, did Xerxes, the king in the movie 300, the one that fought the Spartans at Thermopylae exist? Did you see the movie?

 

Did Leonidas exist? Did Esther exist?

 

I am asking because there are people on this site who study history, and you seem to have little knowledge of the history that occurred during the time of the bible being written? 

I don't know of the evidence of the existence of those figures. I do have little knowledge of the history, which is why I have asked questions to people.

 

 

It would help your argument if you knew a bit of history.

So we can be clear, what argument do you think I'm making?

[Swoosh]

Swoosh, did Xerxes, the king in the movie 300, the one that fought the Spartans at Thermopylae exist? Did you see the movie?

 

Did Leonidas exist? Did Esther exist?

 

I am asking because there are people on this site who study history, and you seem to have little knowledge of the history that occurred during the time of the bible being written? 

 

It would help your argument if you knew a bit of history.

Hey, I posted on your profile feed asking you where I could ask you a question about how acceptable a certain post(s) is/are. 

[Swoosh]

Actually the first step in determining that the story is true is accepting that the existence of the person(s) mentioned in the story is true.   I think Paul is correct in saying that you don't really understand the importance of geealogical records in the biblical era.  This is particularly true when you consider the fact that we are talking about the genealogy of a king and need to establish his lineage.  Futhermore, if you notice in the genealogical record in the book of Matthew the name of another woman is mentioned, that being Rahab, who was a prostitute.  That's important because she is the ancestor of Boaz who was of the Tribe of Judah.  Boaz was a nobleman in the book of Ruth and to have a genealogy that includes Rahab would be othewise distasteful, but the writer doesn't try to cover up that fact.  That demonstrates a willingness and an attempt at presenting an honest record by not whitewashing the facts which might seem inconvenient.

 

Genealogical records were very, very important for one thing because they established property rights and also in this case establishes the right of someone to claim the right to rule.    In terms of property rights,  it wasn't like it is today.  Your ability to remain the owner of a piece of property and your right to live on that property hinged on being able to prove that it belonged to your family for several generations.   Having an accurate genealogy meant the difference between having a good life or starving to death as a homeless vagabond.   Your genealogy was the most important document that you owned.

 

This was even more important for Kings because the piece of property they needed to establish their right to was the throne, for all intents and purposes.   It cannot be over emphasized how important a truthful and accurate genealogical record is.  There was no incentive to fabricate anything  when it comes to genealogies in the Bible times.

 

Again, the story of Ruth is embedded in several layers of verifiable cultural/historical contexts and one of those layers is the genealogical record which is well established.  So understanding the genealogical aspect of this story is very important and contrary to what you think is a very reasonable method for determining the truthfulness of the record.

As I've told someone else, I'll temporarily defer to you guys when it comes to the importance of genealogies. I never said the genealogies weren't correct. I don't know about enough about that. I do appreciate the extra detail you added though. Maybe I'll check it out myself sometime.

 

 

Once again Swoosh, this is a story about one obscure family in Bethelehem, a relatively obscure town in Judah at the time.  It is unlikely that the story of Ruth caught the attention of any other historian of the time period. There are no other historical records for all of the minute details of all events specific to story of Ruth...

Thank you for responding.

[Fez]

 

Swoosh, did Xerxes, the king in the movie 300, the one that fought the Spartans at Thermopylae exist? Did you see the movie?

 

Did Leonidas exist? Did Esther exist?

 

I am asking because there are people on this site who study history, and you seem to have little knowledge of the history that occurred during the time of the bible being written? 

 

It would help your argument if you knew a bit of history.

Hey, I posted on your profile feed asking you where I could ask you a question about how acceptable a certain post(s) is/are. 

 

As long as you follow the ToS, which I hope you have read, you should be fine. Just remember that there are children on this site and explicit stuff is generally a no, no. Think like a christian when you post and you should be fine. 

 

Xerxes was the husband of Esther, evidence of him at the palace of Suza is still visible today, as are the gates that Mordecai tore his clothing under. Reliefs of Xerxes and his golden staff are still visible today. (Est 5:2  And when the king saw Queen Esther standing in the court, she won favor in his sight, and he held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand. Then Esther approached and touched the tip of the scepter). Xerxes fought Leonidas, king of Sparta at Thermopylae.

 

The bible pays scant attention to the history around it, it concentrates on much more important stuff. Like your soul? 

[Swoosh]

 

What if there are different stories about Ruth with those same "evidence", but those stories were in conflict with the stories you already accept as true? You can't accept both as true, so which do you reject?

 

 

This is interesting young Mr Swoosh.

 

Firstly; do you have any stories about Ruth which are in conflict with the Bible ?

 

Secondly; do you believe the Holocaust of  WW2 occurred and if so why ?

 

No, I don't have any stories about Ruth that conflict with the Bible. I could make one up that is consistent with the so called evidence that I was presented though.

 

I have to admit that my belief in the Holocaust is largely examined. I believe based on what was told to me by history books and from what I've heard from actual survivors of the Holocaust.  So, if I had to be objective, I would say that the majority of my belief in the Holocaust is unexamined, the same as I would describe belief in all the events of the Book of Ruth based on the evidence given to me by users of this forum.

[Swoosh]

As long as you follow the ToS, which I hope you have read, you should be fine. Just remember that there are children on this site and explicit stuff is generally a no, no. Think like a christian when you post and you should be fine. 

The reason I've asked is because I've been talked to on this forum in ways that don't seem "civil" (remember your warning to me). You were ready to discipline for simply saying "explain" earlier, but some of the things others have said to me have continued, though I have turned the other cheek and haven't responded in kind. I wanted to give specific examples of this in private so that I could get your opinion on whether these things said to me are ok or not. Do you want me to do it in private? 

 

Xerxes was the husband of Esther, evidence of him at the palace of Suza is still visible today, as are the gates that Mordecai tore his clothing under. Reliefs of Xerxes and his golden staff are still visible today. (Est 5:2  And when the king saw Queen Esther standing in the court, she won favor in his sight, and he held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand. Then Esther approached and touched the tip of the scepter). Xerxes fought Leonidas, king of Sparta at Thermopylae.

 

The bible pays scant attention to the history around it, it concentrates on much more important stuff. Like your soul? 

I see. Thanks for the information. Certainly interesting info.

[Guest ninhao]

 

No, I don't have any stories about Ruth that conflict with the Bible. I could make one up that is consistent with the so called evidence that I was presented though.

 

I have to admit that my belief in the Holocaust is largely examined. I believe based on what was told to me by history books and from what I've heard from actual survivors of the Holocaust.  So, if I had to be objective, I would say that the majority of my belief in the Holocaust is unexamined, the same as I would describe belief in all the events of the Book of Ruth based on the evidence given to me by users of this forum.

 

 

Ok. It seems you're in the unenviable position of needing direct knowledge of every event ( or property of substances in experimental applications ) as per the Baconian vision.

 

I hope you have plenty of data space.

 

As you've said though believing an event happened, in a large part, comes from trusting predecessors accounts and correlating this with available data as Shiloh has done with the Book of Ruth.  

[Swoosh]

 

 

No, I don't have any stories about Ruth that conflict with the Bible. I could make one up that is consistent with the so called evidence that I was presented though.

 

I have to admit that my belief in the Holocaust is largely examined. I believe based on what was told to me by history books and from what I've heard from actual survivors of the Holocaust.  So, if I had to be objective, I would say that the majority of my belief in the Holocaust is unexamined, the same as I would describe belief in all the events of the Book of Ruth based on the evidence given to me by users of this forum.

 

 

Ok. It seems you're in the unenviable position of needing direct knowledge of every event ( or property of substances in experimental applications ) as per the Baconian vision.

 

I hope you have plenty of data space.

 

As you've said though believing an event happened, in a large part, comes from trusting predecessors accounts and correlating this with available data as Shiloh has done with the Book of Ruth.  

 

I don't have a lot of knowledge of how historical events are considered true by historians. There seems to be no clear way of testing a lot of the claims. When it comes to historical claims, I generally try to be skeptical of them. 

 

As I've said before, I could make up a lot of stories that are consistent with the genealogy and cultural information I've been presented. A lot of them may conflict. That's why I can't use the genealogy and cultural information I've been given here as the end-all-be-all to determine if the stories are true.